Preamble

The House net at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

READING AND BERKSHIRE WATER &C. BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Chatham Dockyard

Mr. Bottomley: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it was with his approval that the Medway Chamber of Commerce was told by the Admiral Superintendent of the Royal Dockyard, Chatham, on Wednesday 28th January that in selecting Chatham as the first yard for the reorganisation and modernisation of the Royal Dockyards its own future was assured.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): The Admiral Superintendent's speech was intended to emphasise that Chatham Dockyard is not being closed, as was made clear in my noble Friend's Explanatory Statement on the Navy Estimates last year.

Mr. Bottomley: Does not the Civil Lord think it would have been better for the First Lord to have accepted the invitation of the civic authorities to make this statement himself?

Mr. Galbraith: I am not certain what the right hon. Gentleman is getting at. The statement about Chatham continuing as a naval dockyard was made a year ago in the Explanatory Statement of my noble Friend. Having said it once, there was no need for him to go all over the country to every place which was not to be closed in order to say it all again.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the great anxiety in the Medway towns, particularly at the time when the closing of the dockyard was first announced, when the First Lord was invited to come by the civil authorities but failed to do so.

Mr. Galbraith: My noble Friend made a statement in the Explanatory Statement, which I reiterated during the debates on the Navy Estimates last year. I do not see what more one can do than that.

Mr. Burden: Is it not a fact that on 19th March last year a deputation from the Medway towns was received and that the First Lord gave a solemn undertaking to that deputation, which included the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) and myself, that the future of Chatham dockyard was assured, which was stated in the local Press, and that since that date both the right hon. Gentleman and myself have been advised that this was to be a pilot yard?

Mr. Galbraith: I think that is true.

Royal Marine Barracks, Chatham

Mr. Bottomley: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will cause an inquiry to be held into the reasons for allowing the Royal Marine Barracks, Chatham, to deteriorate for so long before allowing them to be used for industrial purposes.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: No. Sir.

Mr. Bottomley: Is it not monstrous that this Royal Marine Barracks has been lying idle and rotting for seven years, with the consequent waste of public money, and that there is to be no inquiry?

Mr. Galbraith: There is no need for an inquiry when the facts are perfectly well known and when the sale of these premises has been achieved with very satisfactory results not only for the Admiralty but for the people of Chatham and the Medway towns.

Mr. Burden: Is it not the case that when the Royal Marine Barracks were closed by the party opposite it was estimated that the cost of putting them in a state fit for habitation at the standard of habitation for personnel which was then enforced would have been about £500,000?

Mr. Galbraith: I believe that is so.

Mr. Bottomley: Is it not a fact that the First Lord said that the Royal Marine Barracks would be used and that H.M.S. "Ceres" would be placed there? In view of the fact that that assurance was never carried out, what further safeguards have we that the First Lord's assurance about the dockyard is accurate?

Mr. Galbraith: My answer to that is, "Wait and see."

Dental Surgery Assistants

Miss Vickers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the reason why dental surgery assistants have been recently classified and paid as unskilled workers in Her Majesty's Naval Barracks and the Royal Naval Hospital, Devonport.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: A mistake was made over the payment of a recent wage increase to some of our dental surgery assistants. The amount involved was 8d. per week. The mistake is being corrected, with full payment of arrears. Dental surgery assistants in the Royal Naval Hospitals were not affected.

Miss Vickers: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether this means that they will now be semiskilled and not unskilled workers, because it makes a lot of difference to their establishment in the future?

Mr. Galbraith: Yes, they are semiskilled workers.

Admiralty Houses

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) if he is aware that local authorities in Fife have refused to take over Admiralty houses on the grounds that they are substandard; and whether, in view of the recent rent increases, steps will be taken to bring all Admiralty houses up to standard;
(2) to what extent the rent policy of the Department is operated with provision for rebates for needy tenants.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: The local authority gave no reason for declining to take over the Admiralty houses at Rosyth, but it is presumed that one consideration was that the rents were too low to cover maintenance costs. The increased rents reflect the general standard of the houses

and if the standard were to be improved the rents would have to be further in creased. If in particular cases the increase in rents already notified causes hardship, the facts should be represented through normal official channels. Some temporary concession may then be made if circumstances warrant it.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Civil Lord of the Admiralty aware that one of the reasons specifically given by local authorities for not taking these houses over was that many of them were in a bad state of repair, and that the Admiralty has now inaugurated a rent scheme at the instigation of the Treasury—on the hon. Gentleman's own admission—whereby the tenant gets no redress from the certificate of disrepair procedure under the Rent Act? In other words, the Admiralty is, at the instigation of the Treasury, operating a rent scheme in a way which gives less protection to a tenant than he has even under the miserable Rent Act?

Mr. Galbraith: I do not think I could agree with that statement by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hamilton: Would the Civil Lord undertake to receive representations from tenants, if need be, on this issue, because there are increases of up to 350 per cent, on decontrolled houses? Is it not scandalous that people should have to submit to this treatment without recourse to the certificate of disrepair procedure under the Rent Act?

Mr. Galbraith: I am quite willing to receive any representations on this subject.

Polaris

Mr. Wall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what steps are now being taken to manufacture Polaris in this country.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): None, Sir.

Mr. Wall: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that close touch is being kept with the American experiments with this weapon, and can he say whether future British missiles, as they are developed, will be capable of underwater discharge?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I can readily give an assurance on the first point, but I should want notice of the second.

New Constructions and Refits

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what has been the approximate total expenditure on new construction and on major refits or modernisation, respectively, between V.J. Day and the most recent convenient date.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: About £370 million and £230 million, respectively, excluding repayment services, up to the end of November, 1958.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Does not the magnitude of these figures show that such deficiencies as there may be today cannot be laid at the door of Parliament for not having enough money?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think it is true to say that both Parliament and the nation have always been sympathetic to the needs of the Royal Navy.

Mr. Shinwell: How many millions of pounds has it cost to modernise H.M.S. "Tiger"?

Mr. Ellis Smith: And the "Ark Royal"?

Mr. Shinwell: Is it true that several million pounds have been spent on modernising H.M.S. Tiger"? Is there any justification for that? Is this vessel of any value in a future war?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: It would be better to wait for our debate on the Estimates, which I believe is to take place next week, when I intend to enter into discussion on the subject of H.M.S. "Tiger" and how very much worth while it is for the Fleet of the future.

Entry Qualifications

Vice-Admiral Hughes: Hallett asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty which branches of the Royal Navy offer special openings to boys who have obtained one or two General Certificates of Education at Ordinary Level and leave a secondary modern school at 16 years of age plus.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The artificer branches, which include the categories of engine room, ordnance, electrical, aircraft and shipwright artificer. Boys under 17, with a General Certificate of Education at

Ordinary level in mathematics and a science subject, or its equivalent in Scotland and Northern Ireland, are exempt from the Admiralty educational examination for entry as artificer apprentice.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Could not the great opening for boys of this educational standard in the artificer classes be more widely publicised, and could not consideration be given to exempting boys who have the General Certificate of Education from the necessity of passing the educational test for petty officer, after joining?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: On publicity, I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend has received some publicity for his Question. I hope to deal with the subject in my Estimates speech to give the matter more publicity. It is true that we want more artificers in the Navy, and the more publicity we can get on the matter the better. I should like notice of the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what special openings there are in the Royal Navy for young men who have obtained a diploma at a technical college but are below graduate standard.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Men holding diplomas which are recognised as approaching degree standard may be considered for short-service commissions in the Instructor Branch. Those obtaining a suitable higher national diploma after full-time study at a technical college may be considered for entry to commissions in the supplementary list as electrical specialists. Both offer the opportunity of obtaining a permanent commission.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Could not rather more use be made now of this supplementary list of officers, as was originally recommended? Would not my hon. Friend agree that young men with this qualification from technical colleges are ideal material for this list?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: My noble Friend and myself will certainly consider the first point. I thoroughly agree with my hon. and gallant Friend's second point.

Mr. Steele: Is it not the case that the Navy is raising the standard of qualification for entry into some of the colleges?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: That subject does not arise under this Question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has the thought of Dartmouth in his mind. My noble Friend said in his Explanatory Statement that we were contemplating raising the standard of entry to Dartmouth.

Devonport Dockyard (Apprentices)

Miss Vickers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the fact that Plymouth has more than the national average of school leavers, if he will consider increasing the intake of apprentices for the next five years in Her Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: The apprentice entry must be related to the number of craftsmen we need in the future, and we cannot undertake to enter more than we need. The entry approved for Devonport this year is in fact a little higher than the entries made in the last two years.

Miss Vickers: In view of the fact that in answer to a Question which I asked the Civil Lord last week he said that there would be a reduction of about 200 in the next twelve months, does he not think that it is the duty of the Admiralty to train boys, as private firms have done, so that they can go to firms other than in the Plymouth area?

Mr. Galbraith: While I have a certain amount of sympathy with the point of view of the hon. Lady, I think it would be a great mistake to train more apprentices than there are likely to be vacancies for in the Royal Dockyards.

Plymouth Dockyard (Contracts)

Miss Vickers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the fact that the Naval Estimates for 1959–60 show an increase of £33 million for contract work and that Plymouth is a D.A.T.A.C. area, if he will ensure that extra contracts are given to Her Majesty's Dockyard, Plymouth, in order to help to decrease the high rate of unemployment.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Work to the full balanced capacity of Her Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, is already planned for the next financial year.

Miss Vickers: As there was a reduction of 400 persons employed in the dockyard in 1958, and as we are likely to see further reductions in the coming year, especially in view of the fact that further land has been taken to extend dockyard work, may I ask why my hon. Friend will not accede to my request to employ more people?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Lady must remember that the size of the Fleet is coming down and that various dockyards have been completely abolished. When
I say that the dockyard is working to full capacity, I mean in order to keep the Fleet up to proper service conditions.

Mr. P. Wells: Does not the Civil Lord agree that these figures show that the closing of the Sheerness Dockyard might easily have been avoided?

Mr. Galbraith: I am sorry to say that I cannot reach the same conclusion as the hon. Gentleman.

Welsh Ports (Ships' Visits)

Mr. Gower: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty which of Her Majesty's Ships will visit Welsh ports during 1959; and if he will give details of these ships.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The full programme of visits by Her Majesty's ships to ports in the United Kingdom this year is now under consideration. A number of visits to Welsh ports are being arranged, and I will let my hon. Friend have the details as soon as they are available.

Mr. Gower: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that most of these towns make preparations to receive and entertain officers and men of these ships, and that it is helpful to them to have this information as early as possible in the year? Has he no details?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hospitality which my hon. Friend has mentioned is very welcome to the Fleet. The only details I can give at the moment are: Two coastal minesweepers will be visiting Cardiff from 21st to 24th March; five coastal minesweepers will go to Fishguard from 27th to 30th March; and two submarines will go to Cardiff from 29th May to 1st June. I will circulate the names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the names:

Details of the visits so far arranged are:—


Ships
Type
Port
Dates


H.M.S. SHERATON
…
…
Coastal minesweepers
Cardiff
21st-24th March


H.M.S. BOSSINGTON
…
…


H.M.S. SHERATON
…
…
Coastal minesweepers
Fishguard
27th-30th March


H.M.S. BOSSINGTON
…
…


H.M.S. VENTURER
…
…


H.M.S. MERSEY
…
…


H.M.S. ST. DAVID
…
…


H.M.S. ALARIC
…
…
Submarines
Cardiff
29th May-1st June


H.M.S. SCORCHER
…
…

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING

Output

Mr. Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what was the increase in the yearly rate of output of British shipyards during the years 1955–58, inclusive.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Output of new merchant ships from United Kingdom shipyards, both in terms of launchings and completions, has remained fairly stable over the last four years at around 1·4 million gross tons.

Mr. Willey: Would not the Civil Lord agree that these figures are disappointing, in view of the fact that world output of shipbuilding has practically doubled in this time? Will he do his best to persuade the Government to promote an international discussion on the question of world capacity in relation to shipbuilding?

Mr. Galbraith: Certainly I will think about the question of an international discussion. As the hon. Gentleman knows, throughout the whole of this period a lot of modernisation has been going on, and that has prevented any sharp increase in output, though the demand for ships a few years ago was very high.

Sir P. Agnew: What responsibility has my hon. Friend's Department for the output of British merchant ships in British yards?

Mr. Galbraith: The Admiralty is what is called the "sponsoring" Department for the shipbuilding industry. We have obviously no responsibility for output, but we are the sponsoring Department and have a responsibility for trying to

help to provide information about the shipbuilding industry.

Nuclear Propulsion

Mr. Awbery: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that plans have been completed for some time for the construction in Japan of a tanker of 80,000 tons to be powered by a pressurised water reactor and a 20,000-ton atomic-powered liner; if he is satisfied that British shipyards are planning their work with similar foresight so that this country can be in a position to compete in the world's markets in the future; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I am aware that preliminary plans have been drawn up in Japan, but I have no information that work on an economic ship has yet been started there. British shipbuilders are represented on the committee, of which I am chairman, and are actively concerned in studying the problem of how to get an economic nuclear propelled ship to sea.

Mr. Awbery: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the very serious position into which the shipbuilding industry is falling? Now that we are in third position instead of being the first in the world and the largest ships on the stocks are being built by Japan, it appears that we are to lose our lead on the technical and scientific side. Will the hon. Gentleman look at this and see what can be done to improve our position?

Mr. Galbraith: This matter is under my personal review because I am chairman of the committee looking into nuclear propulsion for ships, but I could not accept the view of the hon. Member


that the British shipbuilding industry is not aware of the position and doing all it can to improve it.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Can my hon. Friend give any date when there is a likelihood of an atomic-powered engine suitable for tankers or merchant ships having sea trials?

Mr. Galbraith: I should not like to go further than what I said in the Navy Estimates debate last year.

Mr. Steele: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether his committee has yet come to any decision as to what type of reactor would be most suitable for further development?

Mr. Galbraith: Not yet, Sir.

Cancelled Orders

Mr. Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many orders for new tonnage to be built in British shipyards have been cancelled in the last six months; and what is the total value of the orders so cancelled.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Under existing procedure details of merchant shipbuilding orders received or cancelled in United Kingdom shipyards are reported to the Admiralty at quarterly intervals. Information regarding the first quarter of 1959 is not yet available; in the last quarter of 1958 nine orders were cancelled, for 138,000 gross tons. The value of these orders is not included in the information which is given to the Admiralty.

Mr. Willey: Would not the Civil Lord agree that this is a very disturbing figure? Would he look rather more sympathetically at the many constructive proposals I have made to him over the past few years?

Mr. Galbraith: I would not necessarily accept the adjective about proposals that the hon. Member has made to me, although of course I am glad to receive them. It is true that cancellations in the last quarter were higher than in any of the previous four quarters, but I think it is impossible to trace any particular line, either up or down, in the cancellations over such a short period.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the hon. Gentleman say how many of these cancellations have been of ships on order to North-East Coast shipyards?

Mr. Galbraith: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

R.E.M.E., Scales Branch, Chilwell

Mr. Champion: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will reconsider his decision to move the Scales Branch of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers Technical Services from Chilwell to London, having regard to the fact that this decision will further concentrate his Departments in the London area, will interfere with the close liaison between the Scales Branch and the Royal Army Ordnance Corps Stores and the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, and will cause hardship to the staff who would be forced to move into an area where they will be under great difficulty in securing reasonable housing accommodation.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): The R.E.M.E. Scales Branch at Chilwell is one of four establishments which are doing related work but which are scattered in different parts of the country. For greater efficiency they should and are to be brought together.
A new organisation has therefore been formed, called R.E.M.E. Technical Services. Its exact location has not yet been decided but we are expecting to put it on the outskirts of London. There are three reasons for this. First, the majority of the staff concerned already live near London, so that domestic upheaval will be reduced to a minimum. Secondly, the Technical Services require day-to-day contact with research establishments and Government Departments in or near London. Finally, there is likely to be suitable accommodation for the unit in this area without the need for new building.

Mr. Champion: While thanking the Secretary of State for his very full and careful reply, may I ask if he has consulted the professional trade unions concerned and taken into his confidence in


this matter the men who will be particularly affected, because I understand that the staff is very disturbed about this aspect of the matter?

Mr. Soames: Yes, the staff side has been consulted, beginning as long ago as 1957. I am sorry about the personal inconvenience which will be caused to these men and their families in moving South; but whereas about 100 are affected by doing it in this way, 1,000 would be affected if we did it in another way.

Mr. Champion: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some special consideration to the possibility of assisting these men in obtaining alternative housing accommodation?

Mr. Soames: Those moving to the London area to homes there will be eligible for grants to meet the extra cost of moving in respect of such things as lodging expenses, removal and storage of furniture and legal and other expenses. We shall do all we can to help them.

Batmen

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for War how many men are employed as batmen and as servants to officers' wives.

Mr. Soames: No central record is kept of the number of soldiers employed as batmen. The scale is laid down in regulations which make it plain that batmen are provided solely to give personal service to officers.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is there not a considerable misuse of manpower in that many batmen are doing services for officers' wives which really ought to be done by paid help? Cannot this be looked into, because it is causing considerable alarm among certain of the men?

Mr. Soames: It is impossible to cover the duties of batmen by specific regulations. It must be a matter of commonsense arrangements between the officer and his batman. My experience is that arrangements between the officer and the batman are arrived at by mutual voluntary agreement, and I do not think it helps to make general allegations of this nature. If the hon. Member has specific details of cases where he thinks a batman has been misemployed and will let me

know, I should be glad to look into them, because I am as anxious as he is to stop any misuse of manpower.

Rifleman T. Williams

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Secretary of State for War who authorised the special reception for 23604106 Rifleman Williams when he reported for National Service at the Winchester depot of the Kings Royal Rifle Corps on 22nd January; and what he anticipates will be the effect on morale and recruitment.

Mr. Soames: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 28th January to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall).

Mr. Irving: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this was a most unsatisfactory reply and conflicts entirely with Press reports of its relations with his Department in this matter? Is not the truth that his Department made a complete ass of itself in this case? Would it not he more graceful for him to admit that? Will he confirm the rumour that he has promised to write a foreword to the forthcoming book of memoirs expected on this?

Mr. Soames: I would assure the hon. Member that there is absolutely no question of publicity being sought by the Army for recruiting purposes in this connection. The whole history was set out in the Answer and I do not think it needs repeating.

Exercises, Luneburg Heath

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he will convey congratulations to the commander and troops of the British Berlin Brigade for their exemplary behaviour during their recent manoeuvres on Luneburg Heath, which enabled these manoeuvres to be completed without damage to the woods or farmlands; and
(2) whether his attention has been drawn to the reports of serious and widespread damage caused to farmlands and woods on Luneburg Heath by British troops, other than the Berlin Brigade, during the recent exercises; what representations he received from the West German Government in this connection; and what orders have been issued to prevent a repetition of avoidable damage in future exercises.

Mr. Soames: I agree that credit is due to the Berlin Brigade for avoiding unnecessary damage during its summer training. It would be a mistake, however, to compare its record with that of other formations, because the Berlin Brigade was not required to use tanks, whereas many of the exercises near Luneburg involve the extensive use of armour and damage to land is inevitable. It was aggravated last summer by the wet weather.
Before every exercise the troops taking part are instructed to avoid undue damage to land, and many formations have trained over this area without incident or complaint. There is a claims office maintained in the training area so that claims for compensation may be dealt with promptly in conjunction with the German Federal authorities.
At their request the civil authorities were given an assurance last July that the troops had been instructed to avoid unnecessary damage.

Mr. Hynd: I do not know how far the Minister is aware of the damage that was done and the amount of unnecessary litter, with probably some dangerous stuff being left lying about. Would he be prepared to look at some pictures of this damage and tell the House whether the instructions issued years ago have been carried out as far as possible? Will he make arrangements for ensuring that damage is avoided as far as possible and that these instructions are enforced?

Mr. Soames: Certainly we try to keep damage down to the absolute minimum, but when moving large numbers of tanks over heath and agricultural land there is bound to be some degree of damage. The troops do their best not to cause any more damage than is necessary.

Mr. Steele: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is general concern about the lack of training areas in Germany at present? Has any representation been made to the other Allies in Europe with regard to making training grounds available for these exercises?

Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir. The general question of training areas and their use by N.A.T.O. Forces is under discussion and is to be put on a footing which will be acceptable to both sides.

Mr. J. Hynd: The Minister has not replied to one of the main points in Question No. 26—what representations, if any, have been received from the West German Government? Will he answer that?

Mr. Soames: I said that at their request the civil authorities were given an assurance last July that the troops had been instructed to avoid unnecessary damage.

Signalman Ford

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the amnesty being granted to Cypriot internees, he will review the case of Private Brian Ford and consider reinstating him to the rank of corporal, making it retrospective to the time of his court-martial with full rights of pay.

Mr. Soames: No, Sir. Signalman Ford pleaded guilty to an offence under military law and his conviction cannot be affected by the subsequent amnesty in Cyprus.

Sir A. V. Harvey: While thanking my right hon. Friend for a dusty reply, may I ask how he reconciles it with the fact that Cypriots and Turks have been released from prison, to which they had been committed for vile offences, whereas all that Private Ford did was to distribute some leaflets? Will he review the matter and take into account the fact that twice the corporal's sentence was reduced after the court-martial? Why was that done, unless the War Office were unhappy about it?

Mr. Soames: There are two points which I should like to make about this Question. First, Ford was convicted, after a plea of guilty, of distributing leaflets inviting members of the forces to intimidate Greeks with violence. The leaflets also accused a judge of being on the payroll of E.O.K.A. Ford was sentenced to nine months' detention and reduced to the ranks. On review, the detention was first reduced and then remitted. In view of the offence, he was not harshly treated.
On the general question, I can see my hon. Friend's point of view, but I think that he will see, on reflection, that what he proposes could not be justified. The remarkable record of our Security Forces in Cyprus is in itself a tribute to the very


high standard of discipline in the Army, and it would be fatal to that discipline if we created an impression among Service men that they could disobey orders or break military law during the process of an emergency in the expectation of having their convictions set aside by an act of amnesty at the end.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a most unsatisfactory answer? Surely he is aware that an amnesty has been granted to many Cypriots who had been found guilty of the most atrocious crimes. If there is to be a general amnesty for people who have committed heinous offences, how can he justify retaining in detention or otherwise penalising men of Her Majesty's Forces who have been provoked, to a very large extent, by the circumstances in Cyprus? Will he please reconsider the matter?

Mr. Soames: No, Sir. I have considered it very thoroughly. I should first make it clear that this man is not in detention. Secondly, the provocation is no excuse for breaking military law.

Dame Florence Horsbrugh: Would my right hon. Friend look at this again in the light of all that has happened and thus show that the House and the country congratulate all those of the security services who have behaved so well in very trying circumstances? Surely he will agree that an exception could be made in this case when a general amnesty is being granted? That would be appreciated both in the House and throughout the country.

Mr. Soames: Of course, I will consider whatever is said in the House, but I must adhere to my belief that military discipline must be maintained.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will reconsider the matter?

Mr. Soames: I said that I would consider everything said in the House but that I adhere to my belief.

Sir A. V. Harvey: As I am unable to obtain a clear answer, and as the Minister's reply was very unsatisfactory, I shall have to raise this matter again at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Letter Boxes

Mr. Tiley: asked the Postmaster-General to what extent, in the efforts tie is making to secure general use of the new standard letter box, he is taking account of the fact that doors made wholly or partly of glass often prevent the letter box being placed in a suitable position.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this question of glass doors, which present a serious and growing problem for the Post Office. Our postmen suffer great inconvenience and delay when they have to manipulate letters and packets into letter boxes placed often little above ground level. We are in discussion with the British Standards Institute, manufacturers of glass doors, architects and builders, in an attempt to get letter plates put in these doors at a reasonable height. If that cannot be done, then a separate letter box, sensibly sited, seems to be the proper solution.

Mr. Tiley: I am grateful for the consideration which my hon. Friend has given to this matter because of the difficulties caused to our postmen in delivering letters and messages at ground level, especially when they have to carry these heavy bags. Will my hon. Friend emphasise this point with the builders' associations and the architects, who can exercise control?

Mr. Thompson: We are trying to get as much concentrated effort into this as possible to relieve the problem.

Big Ben Centenary (Stamp)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make special issues of stamps for sale during June to place on record the centenary commemoration of the Big Ben clock.

Mr. K. Thompson: No, Sir.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I thought so.

Sub-Office, Sheffield (Stradbroke Estate)

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Postmaster-General whether he has now given full consideration to the proposal for


establishing a sub-post office in the shopping centre at Stradbroke Drive, Strad-broke Estate, Sheffield, in view of the special considerations applying in this district, in particular, the large number of old-age pensioners.

Mr. K. Thompson: I have considered this proposal very carefully but I am sorry I should not be justified in meeting the hon. Member's wishes.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Postmaster-General allowing himself to be tied to red tape in these matters? Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that, although this area may be within a mile or three-quarters of a mile of the next nearest post office, it is in a very special situation? It is an old persons' community, and it is a great hardship for them to have to travel the distances which they have to travel to collect their pensions and do other business at the post office?

Mr. Thompson: I went into all those details in considering the application. There is less than half a mile between the suggested site for this office and the nearest existing office, which is no great hardship and is well below the average standard.

Sub-Office, Leeds

Mr. Healey: asked the Postmaster-General if he will authorise the establishment of a sub-post office at 8, Kingswear Crescent, Leeds.

Mr. K. Thompson: I am sorry, but I should not be justified in providing another post office in this area.

Mr. Healey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the inhabitants of this estate have been pressing for a post office for three years and that 1,300 of them petitioned for it last year? In view of the fact that it is nearly a mile by foot, there being no public transport, to the nearest sub-post office, will not the hon. Gentleman reconsider this decision?

Mr. Thompson: My information is that the nearest sub-office is 700 yards away. There is another one less than a mile away, and another just a few yards more than a mile away. Our trouble is that we have many claims for sub-offices of this kind in estates such as have been mentioned today. The service would become hopelessly uneconomic unless we kept a careful hand on it.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Advertisements

Mr. Chapman: asked the Postmaster-General (1) whether he is aware that, at 7.30 p.m., approximately, on Southern Television on 31st January, an unnatural break was made for advertisements in the film, "Cheyenne", the film being interrupted at its climax, just as one character was listening to the start of an Indian attack and being resumed with another character, alongside, also listening; and, as this constitutes a breach of the Television Act, what action he is taking against the Independent Authority;
(2) whether he is aware that, at 9.20 p.m. approximately, on 7th February, during the Southern Television programme, an artificial break was made for advertisements, the screening being interrupted at Mr. R. Beatty is seen arriving at a house in a car, and being resumed as he gets out of it; and, as this is a breach of the Television Act, what action he is taking against the Independent Television Authority.

Mr. K. Thompson: The Authority assures me that in both cases the breaks in which these advertisements were inserted were natural breaks, in compliance with the Television Act. It is its responsibility under Section 4 (3) of the Act to ensure that this is so.

Mr. Chapman: How can this be the case? Is it not a fact that the Authority has at last committed itself to saying that a natural break in a film occurs when there is a significant change of scene or lapse of time? Does the hon. Member believe that that happens when, in a film such as that mentioned in Question No. 30, one of two men standing alongside each other is shown watching an event and a break of one second in the action takes place, when the advertisement is inserted, and the second man is then shown watching the same event? How can that be a natural break, even by the standards set by the Authority itself?

Mr. Thompson: This shows how difficult it is to agree on what constitutes a natural break even when watching the same programme. I have before me an account given by the Independent Television Authority of this scheme. There were close-ups of the faces of a


beleaguered party preparing for a mass Indian attack, with shots of vultures wheeling round the sky and so on. The break then occurred. Immediately following the break a single member of the party was seen in close-up, and the prevailing indecision about when the Indians would attack was resolved by the cry, "Here they come!"

Mr. Ness Edwards: I hope that the hon. Member is not suggesting that commercial vultures caused the break. Is it not a fact that more and more the Independent Television Authority is failing to discharge its responsibilities under the Act? Ought not his right hon. Friend to take steps to change the membership of the Authority?

Mr. Thompson: As I have often said in the House, it is a matter for the Authority itself to guard against this in its observance of the terms of the Television Act.

Mr. Chapman: Would the Minister answer the question which I put to him? The Authority said that there must be a significant change of scene or lapse of time. How does that square with the account which he has given of the scene which I mentioned? Was it not a case of continuous action, with no lapse of time and no change of scene?

Mr. Thompson: As I have said, it is often a matter of opinion as to what constitutes a lapse of time or a significant change of scene. I am bound to say that in this instance the Authority has a good deal on its side in its case.

Sir R. Grimston: Are not the public likely to be the final arbiters in this matter by switching over to the B.B.C. if they are as annoyed by these breaks as hon. Members opposite have suggested?

Mr. Thompson: I am sure that the finger on the switch is by far the best controlling instrument.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General what machinery he has at his disposal for ensuring that all advertisements on commercial television conform to the four conditions laid down in Principles for Television Advertising, approved by him, namely, that they should be legal, clean, honest, and truthful.

Mr. K. Thompson: This is a matter for the Authority which has a duty under the Television Act to comply and secure compliance with the recommendations of its Advertising Advisory Committee. As the foreword makes clear, the principles are based on the recommendations of that Committee.

Mr. Ness Edwards: In view of the fact that the Postmaster-General has to approve the principles for advertising, do I take it that he has no machinery by which to ensure that the principles are applied by the Independent Television Authority?

Mr. Thompson: It is the responsibility of the Authority, as is clearly set out in the Act, to see that the principles of the Committee are adhered to.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Do I take it from that answer that the Independent Television Authority can completely fail to carry out the principles which the Postmaster-General has approved and that no action can be taken?

Mr. Thompson: If the right hon. Gentleman will let me have some evidence of failure, I will attend to it.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General what directions he has given under Section 4 (5) of the Television Act, 1954, relating to the claims made for patent medicines in commercial television advertisements.

Mr. K. Thompson: None, Sir. The principles for television advertising contain the rule that the advertising of medicines and treatment must comply with the basic standard of "The British Code of Standards in relation to the Advertising of Medicines and Treatments".

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that for the past two years the dentists' association has been complaining about the false claims made for certain tooth powders and that sort of thing? Do I understand that their association has no remedy whatever in applying to the Postmaster-General himself?

Mr. Thompson: The same rules are accepted by the Television Advertising Advisory Committee as apply to advertising generally. They are constantly under review.

Mr. Ness Edwards: In this case, an appeal has been made by the professional association, which is recognised by all parties, to the I.T.A. It has made its objections against these false claims. Do I understand that the Postmaster-General can do nothing about it?

Mr. Thompson: The responsibility rests firmly upon the Authority.

Dr. Summerskill: How does the British Code of Standards, which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, relate to the proprietary drugs which are now advertised and which have no therapeutic value at all?

Mr. Thompson: All advertisements and claims for these proprietary drugs are considered by the Committee and would not be approved if they were wildly extravagant.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, despite its own regulations that advertising at peak hours shall not exceed eight minutes in the clock-hour, the Independent Television Authority broadcast 9½ minutes of advertising, bringing extra revenue of over £2,000, between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. on Saturday, 25th October, and that it again exceeded the limit during the same period on Sunday, 26th October, and on various subsequent weekends; and whether, as the Authority does not effectively control programme contractors in this matter, he will issue his own regulations under Section 4 (4) of the Television Act, giving the exact advertising time which must not be exceeded.

Mr. K. Thompson: From the beginning there has been a definite arrangement that the overall daily average of advertising should not be more than six minutes an hour and the amount of advertising is always within this limit. The eight minutes to which the hon. Member refers was part of the arrangement made by the Authority at the beginning of 1958. Under this the amount of advertising in any one hour was broadly limited to eight minutes subject to the overall average which I have mentioned. The Authority regards some flexibility as reasonable depending on the different types and lengths of programmes. The answer is the last part of the Question is "No, Sir."

Mr. Chapman: Where will it end if it goes on like this? If the Authority says

that eight minutes must be the maximum, is 9½ minutes too much? Can it be ten, 11 or 12 minutes? Is eight minutes in the hour to be exceeded every Saturday, as it has been recently? Are these abuses never to be checked by the I.T.A. or by the Postmaster-General?

Mr. Thompson: The Authority has a responsibility to see that the amount of advertising is not such as will detract from the value of the programmes. This is a matter which the Authority can judge in conjunction with the listening and viewing figures, which it has constantly to watch.

Mr. Gower: Is it not a fact that if there were no advertising these programmes would cost the taxpayer an awful lot of money?

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Postmaster-General on whose monitoring and transcription service he relies for ensuring observance of the regulations on advertising, agreed by him with the Independent Television Authority.

Mr. K. Thompson: This is a matter for the Authority, whose duty it is to secure that the provisions of the Television Act in regard to advertising are complied with.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Authority has no monitoring or transcription service? Can he confirm that the transcription services used by the I.T.A. and by himself are, in fact, the transcription services of the programme contractors?

Mr. Thompson: I am not sure what is the purpose behind the hon. Member's supplementary question. The fact is that the Authority itself watches every programme and every advertisement, as it is required to do. When it is called upon, as it has been recently, and as the hon. Member knows, to provide a transcript of a broadcast, it is able to do so.

Mr. Mayhew: Will the hon. Gentleman make plain that the transcript to which he refers and which he sent me when I made a complaint against Associated Rediffusion was not a transcript made by Associated Rediffusion itself? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm this?

Mr. Thompson: I will look into that.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the assurances given by Her Majesty's Government at the time of the passage of the Television Act, he will use his powers under the Second Schedule of the Act to prevent the broadcasting of more than six minutes of advertising in an hour.

Mr. K. Thompson: From the beginning the Independent Television Authority has had a definite arrangement that the overall daily average of advertising should not be more than six minutes an hour and the total amount of advertising is always within this limit. The Authority informs me that in January, the last month for which national figures are available, the average amount of advertising per hour was, in fact, under four minutes.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that at the time of the passing of the Act the Government gave an assurance that the amount of advertising should be six minutes in the hour? Is he aware that the I.T.A. interprets this to mean that programme contractors may broadcast eight minutes and more advertising at peak hours when sets are switched on, provided only that they broadcast less than six minutes of advertising at other times when no one is watching? Is this a fair interpretation of the phrase "six minutes in the hour"?

Mr. Thompson: It was always intended that it should be averaged over the day.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in a film of the Erskine-Pastrano boxing broadcast by the Independent Television Authority on 25th February, rounds five and seven were cut out in order to make room for advertisements; and, in view of the fact that the provisions regarding breaks for advertising are no longer closely observed, or firmly enforced, whether he will use his powers under the Second Schedule of the Television Act to prevent the insertion of advertisements, otherwise than in natural breaks, in programmes.

Mr. K. Thompson: The Authority tells me that the programme to which the hon. Member refers was billed in the Television Times as showing only the highlights of the contest. There was no intention to show the whole of the fight.

The answer to the second part of the Question is "No, Sir."

Mr. Mayhew: In general, if we accept as natural breaks the intervals between the rounds of a boxing match, is it a natural break when the rounds are left cut altogether?

Mr. Thompson: I imagine that it depends upon the type of programme. In this case, it was not intended to be a full broadcast of the fight.

Fictitous News Broadcasts

Mr. Grey: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the alarm caused to viewers when a special announcement was made by the news broadcaster on Friday night on Independent Television; and if he will make a direction under Section 9 (2) of the Television Act, 1954, requiring the Authority to refrain from broadcasting in fictional programmes passages purporting to be news announcements.

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the offence given to the public by the screening on Independent Television on 20th February of the item entitled
"Before the Sun Goes Down," and if he will use his powers under Section 9 (2) of the Television Act, 1954, to direct the Independent Television Authority to refrain from broadcasting fictitious news broadcasts of a sensational nature.

Mr. K. Thompson: I am aware of the concern caused, and I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) on 26th February, 1959.

Mr. Grey: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that this form of panic viewing has shocked everyone who watched it? People in the North East, who have had a new station for only a couple of months, wonder whether this is the type of thing they are to have. Will the hon. Gentleman either see to it or issue a direction to I.T.A. that his kind of thing will not happen again?

Mr. Thompson: There is no need to issue a direction. The Authority has issued instructions to the programme company that this shall not be done. That seems to me to deal with the situation.

Mr. M. Stewart: If the use of fictional news broadcasts for the purpose of sensation is to be permitted, an incident might occur in which very many more people would be seriously misled than happened on this occasion. Does not the rather silly vulgarity of this episode suggest that, in general, the Authority's judgment is not to be trusted?

Mr. Thompson: I fear the hon. Gentleman misunderstood my probably inadequate language. "The Authority has issued instructions that this shall not be done again."

Prize Programmes

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been directed to a breach of statute in respect of the programme "Quiz 21", by Granada, all of which has recently formed the subject of a report by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey, a summary of which Report has been sent to him; what action he now proposes to take to require that the Independent Television Authority secure from Granada full compliance with statutory provisions; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Thompson: I am aware of the Report to which my hon. Friend refers, but my attention has not been directed to any breach of statute. As regards action on the Report, the Independent Television Authority informs me that the Report's recommendations are being taken into account in connection with its current review of the arrangements for the proper conduct of all programmes with prizes.

Mr. Nabarro: Will not my hon. Friend concede to the House at once that the many unsavoury and insidious aspects of the conduct of this programme contractor, in the form of grave impropriety, represent a breach of the Statute? Now that we have seen Independent Television in action for a few years, is it not desirable that consideration should be given to the strengthening of the Statute in order to increase the powers of I.T.A. to deal with malpractices and defalcations of this kind?

Mr. Thompson: The Television Act gives the Authority perfectly adequate powers, and the Authority is quite ready to use them. I have dealt with the situ-

ation relating to the specific programme to which my hon. Friend refers and to the general question of prize programmes. If my hon. Friend has any other specific complaints to make which appear to him to offend against the Statute, I should be grateful if he would let me know.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this sort of thing has been going on for a long time? The Independent Television Authority was quite aware of it, but it was not until one of the programme contractors, under the pressure of public opinion, arranged that this inquiry should be held that the Independent Television Authority woke up. Is it not about time that we stopped the Director-General of Independent Television Authority cocking a snook at the House every time a complaint is raised?

Mr. Thompson: I have repeatedly warned the right hon. Gentleman against vague generalisations. [Interruption.] I repeat that I have warned him against vague generalisations.

Mr. Ness Edwards: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that one's conduct in the House should be governed by warnings from the Chair and not from the Floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members are in the habit of uttering exhortations and advice to each other in a way which I would not dream of doing.

Mr. Thompson: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to go beyond the specific point raised in my hon. Friend's Question, which I have dealt with, —

Mr. Nabarro: You have not dealt with it.

Mr. Thompson: —he has a proper recourse by putting a Question on the Order Paper, when I will do my best to deal with it.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman consider for once in a while warning I.T.A.?

Mr. H. Morrison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that two specific instances have been put before the House this afternoon, one from this side and one from the other side, where the I.T.A. or its constituent programme companies have not been behaving as they should? The


hon. Gentleman says that the I.T.A. will now warn them, or has warned them, that this must not happen again. Can he tell us why the I.T.A. does not act in accordance with the principle of the Act of Parliament, which the House, I think wrongly, approved? Is it not time that he gave the I.T.A. a warning that they had better behave themselves?

Mr. Thompson: The I.T.A. is daily keeping its hand on the activities of the programme companies so far as it is required to do so under the Act. If now and then something happens which draws the attention of a wider audience, including Members of the House, to some incident which appears to them to offend, then we have this sort of situation.

Mr. Nabarro: A few moments ago my hon. Friend used the words "vague generalisations". Is it not the fact that this case involved financial dishonesty? As large numbers of competitors were involved and the general public have a direct interest, surely it is a Ministerial responsibility under the Act to take further action to prevent financial dishonesty of this kind?

Mr. Thompson: I have informed the House that the Authority is reviewing the whole structure of the prize programmes. Until we know what its proposals are, there is clearly no field for Ministerial intervention.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Chester and North Wales

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General if he will state the number on the waiting list for telephones in the Chester and North Wales areas; what percentage this forms of the total number of subscribers; and how this compares with the national average.

Mr. K. Thompson: In the Chester telephone area, which includes North Wales, 995 applications are on the waiting list, excluding those under inquiry or in course of being met. This is just over 2 per cent. of the total number of subscribers in the area. The figures for the City of Chester are 70 and 0·9 per cent., respectively. In the United Kingdom as a whole, 67,808 applications are waiting.
This is 1·5 per cent. of the total number of subscribers.

Mr. Hughes: In view of what the Minister has said and also of the very high incidence of unemployment in certain areas in North Wales, will he not consider accelerating this work and thereby killing two birds with one stone?

Mr. Thompson: We are doing a very great deal in that area. The hon. Member and the House might like to know that over 3,500 telephones were connected in that area last year. We hope to do as well in the current year. We are also putting new equipment into fifteen exchanges in the next twelve months. New cables are being laid in nine different areas.

Applicants, Wales and Barry

Mr. Gower: asked the Postmaster-General (1) the average time a new applicant for a business telephone has to wait in England, Wales and Barry, respectively; and if he will make a statement;
(2) the average time a new applicant for a domestic telephone service has to wait in England, Wales and Barry, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Thompson: Separate statistics are not kept for the time taken to meet business and residential applications, and with permission, therefore, I will answer these two Questions together.
When plant is available, the average time both in England and Wales is about twelve weeks. Business applications have priority and in their case the average time is slightly less. My information is that the average time in Barry is similar to that elsewhere. We connected 192 telephones last year and are dealing with 49 new applications at the moment.

Mr. Gower: In thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether it is not a fact that in large numbers of places, in South Wales at least, there is a shortage of equipment? Will my hon. Friend look into this aspect of the problem?

Mr. Thompson: Yes, we have many areas where there is shortage of either line plant or exchange equipment. We are working hard to keep pace with the demand and to improve the service.

ROYAL AIR FORCE

Radio School, Yatesbury

Mr. Snow: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to existing quarters, food and other amenities at the Royal Air Force Station, Yatesbury, Wiltshire; what action he will take to improve them; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Airey Neave): The Radio School at Yatesbury is contracting and we intend to transfer its task to a station with permanent buildings, possibly after combining it with another school, as soon as it has run down to the size we plan. Yatesbury will then close. Although conditions meanwhile are not as good as we should like, we are carrying out essential maintenance and are also putting in certain new cooking equipment. On the whole, facilities for sport and recreation are good.

Mr. Snow: In the meantime, there can be no excuse for bad conditions for men attending classes there. Will the hon. Gentleman look into the question of bad food, bad living conditions and compulsory sports parades when there is not sufficient equipment for the men to indulge in the sports concerned? Will he ensure that the permanent staff does not always have the best of it?

Mr. Neave: We are certainly doing our best to improve the recreational facilities, and, of course, the cooking as well.

Batmen

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many airmen are engaged in performing duties as batmen and as servants to officers' wives.

Mr. Neave: No airmen are employed as servants to officers' wives. Officers living in married quarters are entitled to batman service, but only to the same extent as officers living in mess.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not a fact that many airmen are misused in this way by having to do household chores for the officers' wives? Will the hon. Gentleman examine this? It seems all wrong that they should be doing this and that the officers' wives should not be called upon to employ civilian labour in the normal way.

Mr. Neave: We have rules for stewards, as they are called, in married quarters. They are the same as for those who work in mess. These duties are spent in looking after the officers' uniform and his room. These instructions are quite clear, and we are prepared to treat any breach of them as a serious matter.

PRIME MINISTER AND FOREIGN SECRETARY (VISIT TO SOVIET UNION)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the visit which my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have just paid to the Soviet Union.
I must express my gratitude to the House for its indulgence in allowing us to be away for a considerable number of days at a time when Parliament is sitting. Unfortunately, we shall have to seek the same indulgence when my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I make our proposed visits to Paris, Bonn and Washington for further discussions there. But I feel that these visits are essential.
The Soviet Government accepted my suggestion for a visit at comparatively short notice. Despite this, careful and well-planned arrangements were made for us to see something of the country and the people, and also for us to have long and private talks with the Soviet leaders. The hospitality we enjoyed was traditionally generous.
In the course of our stay in Moscow, and of our tour to Kiev, in the Ukraine, and to Leningrad, we were given a broad picture of their industrial and social activities, especially the work of reconstruction and development.
It is, however, about our discussions that the House will wish particularly to hear. At their conclusion we signed the communiqué which has been published. This covers both certain questions of Anglo-Soviet concern, and also wider international issues.
The House will have noted that we made modest but definite advance towards improving what are termed "cultural relations" between the two countries, together with an agreed procedure for


reviewing future progress in this matter. On the important question of trade, it was agreed that a mission, led by a United Kingdom Minister, should visit the Soviet Union in the near future to investigate in more detail the scope for increasing the volume of trade between our countries.
The wider questions we discussed concerned the problems of Berlin and Germany, disarmament, and nuclear tests. I made it clear before my visit that our purpose was not to negotiate. It was to try to seek a better understanding of our respective views on these grave issues, and the reasons underlying them.
This purpose was achieved. On some matters, such as the control of nuclear tests, some tentative ideas emerged in the course of our informal conversation with the Soviet leaders. Of course, these will need further consideration, since our two countries are not the only ones concerned.
But the main point is that on these wider problems we reached agreement that the great issues which separate East and West must be settled by negotiation. In my speech at the Kremlin reception, on the day before our departure, I described this as follows:
Negotiations based on knowledge gained in full discussion, and conducted with a sincere desire to reach fair agreements".
This agreement is, I think, reflected in the latest Note to the Western Governments from the Soviet Government. The House will not expect me to comment on that Note at present, since it is clearly a matter for consultation between us and our Allies.
I must refer to one specific subject which arose in the course of the talks—the possibility of a pact or declaration of non-aggression between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. I stated that we were willing to agree to a declaration on the following lines.
First, that in all matters of dispute, our two countries should act in the spirit and letter of the United Nations Charter. Secondly, that neither Government would seek unilaterally to prejudice the rights, obligations and vital interests of the other. Thirdly, on the basis of these principles, our two Governments should agree to settle disputes by negotiation and not by force. Such a declaration would in no way prejudice our firm resolution to stand by our existing defensive alliances.
In the time available, we were not able to agree on the terms of a declaration. These will be the subject of further discussion between our Governments.
As I have already mentioned, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I now propose to visit Paris and Bonn during the course of next week, and we are hoping to arrange a visit to Washington soon after that. I believe that these visits are also part of the essential preparation for wider talks.
We must not, of course, disguise from ourselves that, as the communiqué indicates, our talks with the Soviet leaders revealed wide differences between us. It is, nevertheless, a great gain that we have reached agreement on the principle that differences between nations should be resolved by negotiation.
I believe that, in the outcome, it will be seen that these preliminary discussions have played a valuable part, and that it was right for the United Kingdom Government to take this initiative.

Mr. Gaitskell: In welcoming the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary back from their visit to Moscow, may I say that although the agreement reached with the Soviet Government is, of course, a limited one, this was, in my opinion, inevitable in the circumstances? As I ventured to say at one of the more difficult moments of the tour, I am sure that the personal contacts established are necessary and worth while to our relations with the Soviet Union.
Perhaps I may now ask two questions on the communiqué. First, can the Prime Minister throw a little more light on the progress that is said to have been made in the development of cultural exchanges? I think that he said that some new procedure had been laid down, but I have not been able to discover that dealt with in detail in the Press.
Secondly, since I regard the passage about the agreement between the two Governments on the possibility of an area of Central Europe in which both nuclear and conventional forces should be limited as one of the most significant passages in the communiqué, can the Prime Minister say whether he feels reasonably certain that that part of the communiqué is one that our Western Allies will also support?
Finally, I should like to add that although there are a number of important issues which will have to be debated in the House in the near future—such as the Agreements with Egypt and Cyprus—and although I hope that it will be possible for the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to take part in those debates, nevertheless, from this side of the House, we would not wish to put anything in the way of an initiative towards peace on the part of the British Government.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I think that we do give some account of how the agreement on cultural contacts might proceed from point to point. That should have been published. Perhaps it has not been published, but I shall see that the annex to the communiqué is laid as a White Paper.
Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I felt encouraged by the fact that I was allowed to make a broadcast of some considerable length, without any form of censorship or change, entirely on my own responsibility, and that it was listened to, I understand, quite widely in the Soviet Union. It is that kind of thing that we want to be able to do more and more.
On the second point that the right hon. Gentleman raised, he will know that the words are:
In this connection they agreed that further study could usefully be made of the possibilities of increasing security by some method of limitation of forces and weapons, both conventional and nuclear, in an agreed area of Europe, coupled with an appropriate system of inspection.
We had a useful and, I think, constructive discussion, of course in private, on this matter. It is one of the matters which, in my view, should be further studied together with all the countries concerned. It is partly one of my purposes in my visits to take up that together with other questions.

Mr. A. Henderson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman about the proposed joint declaration? Is it intended that this declaration is to be strictly bilateral, or is it intended to be open to signature by other Governments, such as the United States and French Governments?

The Prime Minister: Since our drafts were communicated to each other rather

late in the proceedings, we could not reach an actual agreement upon them. Perhaps it would be rather fairer to wait until these negotiations continue. I have the point of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in mind.

Mr. Healey: In view of the Government's very welcome although belated agreement to study the possibility of an arms limitation zone in Europe, will the Prime Minister authorise the initiation of discussions with the Polish Government on Mr. Rapacki's proposals in this respect?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that I can accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. Surely the right thing that we have to do now is to try to get a negotiation going. That is what we must try to do; not to argue too much about the exact phrasing of it or the proposed formula for it, but to get it going. If—there are always "ifs"—this should mean the beginning of negotiations rather than unilateral decisions as to what is to be done, then I think that we have a hope of making substantial progress. It is on that that I think we should now concentrate.

Mr. Shinwell: The Prime Minister referred to the possibility of a Minister proceeding shortly to the Soviet Union for the purpose of considering the possibility of mutual trade. As this is a very important matter for the United Kingdom, as no doubt it will be also for the Soviet Union, can this be expedited?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We had a discussion on trade problems generally and quite a good exposé of the difficulties and problems which arise on both sides. I made this suggestion and it was warmly accepted by Soviet leaders and we shall, therefore, act upon it as soon as arrangements can be made.

Mr. Mayhew: The Prime Minister referred to limited progress in the cultural field, and the annex to the communiqué refers to the forthcoming visit to the Soviet Union of the Soviet Relations Committee. May we take it that arising out of the talks the budget of the Soviet Relations Committee will be increased?

The Prime Minister: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget. I was careful to preserve our position that


we wanted details of these negotiations to be carried out through this Committee, upon which the hon. Gentleman plays an important part, and not on a Governmental basis in the first instance. I think that that will be acceptable because it is very important that this Committee, having been got going, should be allowed to go on with this work.

Mr. Pitman: Has the Prime Minister raised, or will he consider raising, the question of starting negotiations for a world security authority, on however small a basis, which might take over some of the matters which are potentially dangerous and in dispute?

The Prime Minister: Everything is possible, but I think that the great thing at the moment is to try to make progress step by step.

Mr. Paget: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reassuring news to bring us on the subject of Mr. Khrushchev's toothache?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I understand that it made a rapid recovery.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Towns' Polls and Town Meetings, Birmingham

Mr. Usborne: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 20th March, I shall call attention to the manifest absurdity of the town's polls and town meetings in Birmingham, and move a Resolution.

Consumers (Protection)

Mr. Willey: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 20th March, I shall call attention to the desirability of further protection for the consumer, and move a Resolution.

Industrial Relations

Mr. Darling: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 20th March, I shall call attention to the Report of the Engineering and Allied Employers' Federation entitled, "Looking at Industrial Relations", and move a Resolution.

FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND (HON. MEMBER FOR WEDNESBURY)

Mr. Benn: Yesterday I drew your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a question of Privilege concerning my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house) and I said on that occasion:
It is my submission that the arrest of a Member of Parliament not on a criminal charge, not reported to the House and to you. Mr. Speaker, in a territory over which the House has absolute legislative authority, raises a question of the Privilege of Parliament so serious that it deserves reference to the Committee of Privileges."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1959; Vol. 601, c. 225.]
In reply, you gave a Ruling:
The origin of the doctrine of freedom from arrest which attaches to all Members of Parliament during a Session of Parliament lies in the fact that this House is entitled to have a first claim upon their services and that any person who, by an action of arrest or hindrance, prevents a Member from attending in his place to do his duty is guilty of contempt of the whole House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1959; Vol. 601, c. 226.]
Since you gave that Ruling, Mr. Speaker, there is, of course, fresh evidence on this matter. I would refer you to the report in The Times of today, in which the hon. Member for Wednesbury is quoted as having said, in Dar-es-Salaam:
I was hoping to get hack to the House of Commons in time for the debate tomorrow, but they would not listen to reason. I asked to see the Governor but they refused.
The submission which I make today is that the Federal prohibition order, coupled with the arrest by the Federal authorities, did constitute a hindrance to my hon. Friend attending the debate today which, above all debates, concerns him personally, since it is to be upon a Motion of censure by my right hon. and hon. Friends against the Government for failing to protect my hon. Friend.
I have caused inquiries to be made about the way in which my hon. Friend could have returned from Northern Rhodesia to attend the House. There is only one route and one type of aircraft which would have permitted him to return here today. That was the aircraft which he intended to catch from Lusaka this morning, leaving at seven o'clock, Flight C.E. 611, which was routed via Blantyre in Nyasaland, which he was prohibited


from entering by the prohibition order, from there to Salisbury, which was covered by the same order, to connect there with an aircraft from Johannesburg which would have brought him to London Airport at 12.35 p.m. today. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the effect of the order and my hon. Friend's arrest by the Federal authorities raises a very serious matter indeed.
I will, if I may, draw your attention to one other authority, the authority of the present Attorney-General, who, in 1944, referring to the case of Captain Ramsay, detained under the order to which you yourself referred in your Ruling yesterday, said:
When we look back into history we find that among one of the chief of the ancient rights and liberties that you, Mr. Speaker, claim on our behalf is the right of freedom from arrest for 40 days before the Session and 40 days thereafter…The real reason for the freedom from arrest of Members of this House was to enable them to perform their duties".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1944; Vol. 400, c. 2345.]
That, of course, is the ground on which my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury wished to return to the debate today which concerns himself. I therefore submit the matter to you on those grounds.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you gave a second ground for rejecting my appeal, which was that
an order made by the Secretary of State for Home Affairs detaining a Member of Parliament in pursuance of the Defence of the Realm Regulations is not a breach of Privilege.
I wish to submit to you some evidence now on this point. First, I should like to draw your attention to the Report of the Committee of Privileges which was set up in the case of Captain Ramsay. Of course, it is part of my argument that, since there was doubt on the law in that case which could be resolved only by the Committee of Privileges, similar doubts on the law occur in this case.
One of the firmest points made in the Report of the Committee of Privileges was its quotation, with approval, from Blackstone, that
The chief, if not the only, privilege of Parliament in such cases seems to be the right of receiving immediate information of the imprisonment or the detention of any Member with the reasons for which he is detained.
As of yesterday's date, Mr. Speaker, you had received no such notification. I do

not, of course, know whether you have received it today.
The next point, which differentiates the case of Captain Ramsay from the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury, is the fact that, in the case of Captain Ramsay, the Committee of Privileges found that the Executive, in detaining the hon. Member, was responsible to the House of Commons for the power that they exercised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who was responsible at one stage for the detention of Captain Ramsay, was, of course, open to daily questioning in the House about the hon. Member for Peebles, as he then was, and frequently gave an account of his stewardship to the House. In this case, under your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, there is no possibility of questioning Ministers about the detention or arrest of my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury.
Thirdly, in the case of Captain Ramsay, we have it on the authority of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South, who was Home Secretary at that time, that the case for arresting him
can be justified only where there is reasonable cause to believe that the safety of the State may be in danger."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th September, 1944: Vol. 403, c. 42.]
Since there is not a state of emergency in the Federation at this moment, it cannot be argued that the escorting of my hon. Friend home, under escort, via Blantyre and Salisbury, could have endangered the security of the State.
I submit, therefore, that we are back to the central point of freedom from arrest, namely, the point which arises out of the molestation of a Member by the Crown not answerable to this House. I would respectfully draw your attention once again to the famous occasion of the five Members, when your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Lenthall, said to the Crown, who came personally:
May it please Your Majesty. I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place save as the House directs me, whose servant I am here.
With those words, Sir, I ask that the matter of the complaint be sent to the Committee of Privileges.

Mrs. Castle: rose—

Mr. Speaker: It is usual to hear only one hon. Member on a submission of Privilege.

Mrs. Castle: Before you give your ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I add to the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), in the light of some fresh evidence which I have just received which supports the first point that he made to you so ably and strongly?
I have here the transcript of a tape recording, taken this morning, of a telephone conversation I had with my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), who is now in Dar-es-Salaam. The purpose of my telephone call was to ascertain from my hon. Friend whether he had made efforts to get back to London in time for today's debate and had been prevented from doing so by the Federal authorities.
My hon. Friend informed me that he was due to catch the 7 a.m. plane yesterday to Blantyre, a plane which would have enabled him to reach London in time, but that, at 6.30 a.m., half a hour before the plane was due to leave, he was arrested by the Federal immigration authorities, who prevented him from seeing the territorial Government officials and the Governor, which he wanted to do in order to ask that alternative travel arrangements could be made to enable him to reach London in time for this debate. Instead of being allowed to see the Government officials for this purpose, my hon. Friend was forcibly put on a plane for Dar-es-Salaam, a plane so small that it inevitably meant that he could not reach Dar-es-Salaam in time to catch the London connection from the territory.
My hon. Friend also informed me this morning that, en route for Dar-es-Salaam in this small Piper Apache plane, he was met at a refuelling point in Tanganyika by the Provincial Commissioner, whom he asked to make travel arrangements so that he could reach London. My hon. Friend asked that his plane should be diverted from Dar-es-Salaam to Nairobi so that he might catch the London plane, because it was his very earnest desire to attend this debate and make his own representations here this afternoon. He was told by the Provincial Commissioner and the pilot of the plane that the plane was unsuitable for transporting him to Nairobi, but the point which my hon. Friend made to me on the telephone this morning was that, if he had been allowed, as he had requested half an hour before

his plane was due to leave for Blantyre, to see the Governor of Northern Rhodesia, alternative travel arrangements could then have been made and he would by now have been in this country.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you said:
I cannot see that the Federal Government have done anything to prevent or hinder the attendance of the hon. Member for Wednesbury in his place here. On that ground, I should say that they have not acted in contempt of Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1959; Vol. 601, c. 226]
I put this point specifically to my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury, and it is here in the transcript of the tape recording. I asked him:
Would you say that the actions of the Federal authorities prevented your attendance at today's debate?
My hon. Friend replied:
That is right, yes. They prevented me from making alternative arrangements to travel.
I submit that the words of my hon. Friend himself are prima facie proof that a breach of Privilege has taken place.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened with great care to what has been said by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). I regret as much as anybody the unhappy chain of events which has prevented the attendance of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) among us today, but that is not really the point. The point I have to decide is whether a prime facie case has been made out of contempt on the part of somebody such as would enable me to give discussion of this matter priority over the Orders of the Day. That was the problem which I had to decide yesterday, and it is a problem which I have again to decide today.
In view of all that I have heard, I do not think that yet I am entitled to give that priority. That is not to say that the matter cannot be referred to the Committee of Privileges, or that the House may not declare it to be a contempt of Parliament or a breach of Privilege; but, I think that I must rule that that should be done by a Motion. If I may, I will again give my reasons in brief.
Yesterday, when I was speaking—I did not want to be too long—I thought of the case which occurred in my own experience, concerning a Mr. John Lewis who was the hon. Member for Bolton, West.


Mr. Lewis was coming to the House for a Division, and he afterwards complained that, in the course of his journey, owing to traffic difficulties and the action of a policeman who held him up, he was prevented from arriving here in time. The Committee of Privileges then deliberated on the matter and in its Report, which was published, there are certain very interesting findings which I will draw to the attention of the House. The Report was discussed and approved by the whole House.
The Committee found, in the first place, that the policeman had not obstructed Mr. Lewis in that sense. The Committee stated:
The general privilege is one which has no geographical limits within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
That statement about the limits of the jurisdiction of Parliament for the purpose of Privilege is the first clear
statement which we have had as to how far the matter of access goes. The Committee limits it within the United Kingdom. I have made it my business to make a search to discover whether the privilege of Parliament has ever been claimed for events happening outside the United Kingdom, and I have found none.
If the House considers this matter, then there is the difficulty that it must also consider how we should make any decree on Privilege effective. I am sure that hon. Members would not wish the House to engage in any controversy unless they had a remedy to see that their own will was carried out. That is the first point.
The second point is that the Committee stated, in its conclusions:
Such privileges do not exalt the Member above the ordinary restraints of law which apply to his fellow-citizens.
I think that that is agreed on both sides of the House.
It therefore seems to me that in this case, and in the circumstances which have followed from it, the question whether the order was properly made will no doubt be discussed this evening. I take the view that it was certainly legally made and that, as the hon. Member for Wednesbury did not comply with it by leaving the country, which he could have done, and perhaps reached home in time, they deported him in accordance with their own law; but it was within their

jurisdiction, not within ours. Therefore, in all these circumstances, this is a matter which the House should consider carefully. If the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, after reflecting on what I have said, and with the assistance of any further advice and learning which I can place at his disposal, thinks that a Motion should be tabled to this effect, I am sure that the House would be prepared to consider it.

Mr. Benn: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving your reasons for rejecting my proposal, because it enables further submissions to be made.
The difference between the case of Mr. Lewis and that of the hon. Member for Wednesbury is that no obstruction was placed in the path of Mr. Lewis to prevent him entering the House. There was only the delay which was necessary to give his own details to a policeman for an action which subsequently led to a charge in court. In the case of the hon. Member for Wednesbury, that is exactly the obstruction of which we complain.
The second point which I should like to put to you, Mr. Speaker, is whether you should really lay down a Ruling today which would be read as seeming to suggest that the privileges of a Member of Parliament were limited to the shores of the United Kingdom and could not be extended.
I should like to ask you two further questions, Mr. Speaker. First, have you yet received notification of the arrest of the hon. Member for Wednesbury, and, secondly, in your researches have you ever found an occasion when a Member or Parliament was obstructed and arrested in a British Colonial Territory?

Mr. Speaker: In answer to the first point, I should like to make it perfectly clear that I laid down no fresh Ruling as to the extent of the privileges of the House. I merely quoted a Report of the House's own Committee of Privileges, which was endorsed by the House of Commons.
In reply to the second point of the hon. Member, I have not found a case of a Member of Parliament who was detained in a Colonial Territory. I do not know whether such a case has occurred before. I have not been able to find such a case. If the hon. Member can assist my researches by finding one, I would be much


obliged to him. But, as I say, I have not been able to find a case of an hon. Member who complained on the ground of Privilege of his detention by any Colonial or Commonwealth Power.
What the hon. Member has said does not alter my decision. All these considerations
which he urges upon me do not affect my procedural judgment, that a Motion should not get precedence over the Orders of the Day. If the matter is properly put in the form of a Motion, and it goes to the Committee of Privileges, no doubt it will take into account, at more leisure than I have, all the arguments and precedents which the hon. Member is able to find.

Mr. Benn: Have you received notification of the arrest of the hon. Member for Wednesbury, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I have received no notification whatsoever of the hon. Member's arrest. As I told the House yesterday, I was concerned about him and I made inquiries to find out whether he had been arrested, and I was told that he had not. He had been put on board an aircraft at Lusaka and was being flown to Dar-es-Salaam at that moment, where he was at liberty. He was not imprisoned in any way.

Mr. Paget: Is not the fact that the arrest of a Member in a Colonial Territory has not occurred before a reason why we should consider it, precisely because it is a highly important point upon which there is no decision of this House? Not only Privilege of Parliament but every privilege can be justified only by duty. Our duty runs in the Colonial Territories over which we are the ultimate legislative authority and where we have legislative duty and responsibility. Our privileges, if they exist, spring from that duty.
Now, our Privilege is challenged as to the performance of that duty in a colonial area where a duty clearly exists. I submit that the fact that this is unprecedented is the major reason why the matter should be decided.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East has found a reason why I should procedurally give my decision at once—that this matter should receive priority—but, in giving my decision, I am bound by the precedents which I

mentioned. On the mere matter of procedure, the question of Privilege is one for the House. These considerations can be advanced on a Motion.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am sure that we all appreciate the care and attention which you have given to this matter, Mr. Speaker. You suggested that if my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Bonn) felt it desirable he could table a Motion, but I am sure we would all agree that it is far better that the normal procedure should be followed in matters of Privilege. It would be very unfortunate if this became a party issue and was confused with other matters. The normal procedure is for us to await your Ruling whether a prima facie case has been made out. If you so decide, it is for the Leader of the House to move the appropriate Motion, which is generally passed without opposition.
In that connection, I should like to put this point to you, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friends have submitted today their case on the ground that we did not know yesterday that there appears to have been, or there is said to have been, some interference between my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) and his return to this House. I think, however, that we must concede that we do not know all the facts. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury, but a telephone conversation at that distance, in a short time, does not enable one to probe the whole matter full. Nevertheless, my hon. Friends raised the matter today because they wished to observe the rule of urgency in these matters.
I should like to put this to you, in view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. Since the facts are not clear and since this is, as I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, an important matter of principle, I wonder whether you would be willing, if the hon. Member for Wednesbury so desires when he conies back, and wishes to submit to you his account of the matter, to consider it?

Mr. Speaker: The same thought passed through my mind. It is very difficult for me to decide these matters on reported conversations over the telephone, and also the distance which the hon. Member for Wednesbury is from the House of Commons increases the possibility of


hazards and vicissitudes in his power to travel. But that is another matter. It I had the benefit of the hon. Member's attendance and account, I should be in a much better and happier position than I am at present, but procedurally, bound as I am by precedent, I must for the moment reject the Motion without prejudice to the hon. Member for Wednesbury's right to make his complaint in this House.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Buder): As Leader of the House, I should like to say only that normally it would be the duty of the Leader of the House, had your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, been different, to move a Motion such as has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, but I have respected your Ruling of yesterday and listened to your Ruling of today and, in the circumstances, I feel that no duty falls upon me, at any rate on this occasion.
I paid respect to your Ruling of yesterday and I have paid attention to the arguments of the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) today, but one physical fact should be known to the House in relation to the difficulty of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) in getting away. That is that the 7 a.m. plane did not fly on account of the emergency, which makes the physical addition to the reasons advanced yesterday by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East not so good as would appear. In the circumstances, I think that the best thing would be to leave matters as you have ruled this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Benn: Further to that point, Sir. Since the Leader of the House has chosen to raise the question of the hazards of travel, I might point out that the Government of the Federation put at the disposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury a plane which could have taken him to catch the connection but chose to take him to a place from which no connection was possible.

Mr. C. Pannell: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I have looked at the records outside Erskine May, and though I have not found a case that concerns

a Member of Parliament I have found one which indicates the extreme sensitivity of the House to matters affecting British citizens when they are abroad. I refer to the case of two people who actually afterwards became Members of Parliament, though the incident happened prior to the time when they became Members. It concerns the action of the then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, then Mr., later Viscount, Curzon, in 1896, when dock strike leaders from this country went to Antwerp. They were Ben Tillett and Sexton and, afterwards a Minister of the Crown, John Burns, intervened with Curzon on their behalf. They were expelled from Antwerp for agitation. Lord Curzon held the view that a British citizen abroad, as long as he did not break the law, could agitate on behalf of people in search of their rights, and the dockworkers of those days were just as much depressed as are the people of Nyasaland today.
It will be a very bad job for this House if, sixty years afterwards, we are less sensitive to the fate of a Member of Parliament than Lord Curzon was all those years ago about a couple of agitators, although they afterwards played so great a part in the service of the State. A greater principle is involved here than merely the question of ruling on this matter as a prima facie case of breach of Privilege. If I support my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) it is out of respect to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but not necessarily out of agreement with it.

Mr. Speaker: I take what the hon. Member has said. I, too, think it right that any British citizen abroad, as long as he does not break the law of the land, is entitled to the protection of the House and, even if he does break it, is entitled to such help and succour as the House can give him.
The conclusion that I have reached, with the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, is that the best course is to wait until the hon. Member for Wednesbury returns and return to this matter again completely without prejudice to what may be the result.

BILL PRESENTED

SMALL LOTTERIES AND GAMING ACT, 1956 (AMENDMENT)

Bill to amend the law with respect to the holding of small lotteries on licensed premises, presented by Mr. Ernest Davies; supported by Mr. Mulley, Sir Eric Errington, Mr. Leather, Mr. Frederick Lee, Mr. Nabarro, Mr. Denis Healey, Sir Toby Low, Mr. Mellish, Mr. Ramsden, and Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 13th March and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSE PURCHASE AND HOUSING BILL

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment to Clause 4, page 4, line 34; both Amendments to Clause 4, page 5, line 8; and the Amendments to Clause 4, page 5, line 11; Clause 6, page 5. line 41; Clause 6, page 6, line 4; Clause 13, page 10, line 12; Clause 14, page 10, line 22; and Clause 14, page 10, line 29, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Henry Brooke; and the Amendment to Clause 19, page 13, line 28, standing on the Notice Paper in the name Mr. John Maclay.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: There are several Amendments to the Motion. I do not select that in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), at the end to add:
and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 4, page 5, line 11; Clause 13, page 10, line 12; and Clause 19, page 13, line 28, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Page
because I think that it is covered.
As to the number of Amendments listed in the proposed Amendment to the Motion, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), I will only say that I would not propose to select his Amendments in Clause 2, page 2, line 42 and in Clause 2, page 2, line 43. It seems that there is a mistake in the print in the Amendment which I select, in Clause 5, page 5, line 14. It should read "line 12".

Question amended, by adding, at the end:
and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 1, page 1, line 9; Clause 1, page 2, line 1; and Clause 5, page 5, line 12; and the new Clause (Applications for standard grant at instance of tenants (England and Wales)), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Mitchison".—[Mr. Mitchison.]

and:
and in respect of the Amendment to Clause 20, page 13, line 29, and the new Clause (Applications for standard grant at instance of tenants (Scotland)), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Miss Herbison".—[Miss Herbison.]
and, as amended, agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(APPROVAL OF BUILDING SOCIETIES FOR INVESTMENT BY TRUSTEES AND GOVERNMENT LOANS.)

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "its assets and liabilities" and to insert:
the relation of its assets to its liabilities and as to its.

The Chairman: I think that this Amendment goes together with the Amendment in page 2, line 1, after "prescribe", insert:
and that the society (regard being had to its record and to its financial position) will be able to carry out its obligations under subsection (1) of section two of this Act".

Mr. Mitchison: The two Amendments relate to the question of conditions which a building society has to fulfil if it becomes eligible for trustee status as regards its deposits and also becomes eligible for advances from the Government, which are meant to be related to the advances that the building society in its turn will make to borrowers on what I might call for this purpose small, oldish houses. As the Bill stands, the first condition is that the Chief Registrar has to be satisfied that the building society fulfils requirements as to its assets and liabilities, liquid funds, reserves and other matters, those being requirements prescribed by the Treasury. The second condition is that the Registrar appears to have some discretion in the matter.
In relation to the first condition, Appendix II of the White Paper on House Purchase states the conditions which will be imposed for this purpose. One of them is that the society must have minimum assets of £500,000. Others relate to the proportion between the reserves and the assets of the society and to the liquidity of the society. The two Amendments suggest that instead of the requirements relating in simple terms to its assets and liabilities, they should relate to the relation of its assets to its liabilities which would cover the question of reserves and the question of liquidity, but which would not cover the question of the mere size of the society.
On the other hand, when we come to the second matter—the exercise of the

Chief Registrar's discretion—the second Amendment proposes that he should be given the responsibility of forming the opinion that the society will be able to pay back the Government's money. Clause 2 provides for the repayment of advances, and in this case those are the advances made by the Minister to the society. It is suggested in this Amendment that he should satisfy himself on that matter and that he should have regard to the record of the society and, in general terms, to its financial position.
Before I come to the merits of the proposal, I would say that, as regards the functions of the Registrar, this does not appear to be putting too much on him. Already he has the responsibility of forbidding a society to receive further deposits or payments from the public when he considers it to be insolvent or approaching solvency. Also it is part of his normal duties as Registrar to go through the accounts of the building societies and to see that they comply with the statutory conditions on mortgages where there are difficulties, large mortgages and one or two other similar matters. He is by no means a mere formalist in the sense that he has merely to look at the return, see if it is in order and then deal with it accordingly. He has actually to consider the financial position of these societies already. It is fair to say that in practice no Chief Registrar could fulfil his function in respect of the prevention of frauds, that is, the insolvent society case I have mentioned, unless he not only came to a decision at the last moment but had kept an eye on the society in question, and no doubt on others, for some time previously.
I turn shortly to the merits of the matter. In Committee we had a discussion on the question of reducing the minimum. A suggestion was made that it should be reduced to £100,000, and the difficulty of drawing any line was pointed out by one hon. Member with considerable associations with the building society movement. He said that, as is always the case, if a line is fixed at, say, £500,000—the figure in the Bill—we shall disappoint a number of people with assets of £450,000, and so on.
I suggested in the course of the discussion that what we really wanted to see was that these societies paid back the advances, and that size was relevant


only in so far as that question arose. To put the matter the other way round, there might be a large society which could just comply with the conditions as regards reserves, liquid funds and so on, and be no better from the point of view of real, substantial solvency than a quite small society which had a small capital but complied, and more than complied, with the conditions as to reserves of liquidity. In other words, in effect it is possible for a man with comparatively small resources to be more solvent and more creditworthy than a millionaire with extensive commitments. I suggested, therefore, that the right plan would be to leave it, with the minimum of prescription, to the Chief Registrar.
If one has to choose as I have indicated, it seems to me that the really important matter, the consideration, to be given to the Registrar as the vital financial one, is not size but relation of assets to liabilities, and accordingly it is in that form that the Amendment is drafted. It brings in one other matter beyond the financial position of the society, which I suggest is worthy of attention—that is the record. In some cases records may not matter that much, hut these building, societies over years and generations have been doing the same kind of business, and though the conditions under which they have operated have varied with the economic growth of the country, substantially there has been a continuity which does not exist in every type of economic activity. In consequence a building society with a really good record has something that ought to be considered when we come to the question of whether it can carry out its obligations.
When we look at the societies and at the cases where there has been trouble, as a rule we notice two things. There are every year one or two of these difficult cases and I admit to the Economic Secretary that they are more apt to happen in the smaller than in the larger societies. One is that the relation of reserves to assets and the liquidity of the society is not only bad at the moment but, if we go back a little, that it has been continually bad for some time past. The other is that they are almost always societies with a rather short history. There are some with a longer history, but they tend on the whole to be that type of society. Therefore, I suggest that this Amendment is on the right lines as regards

the question of security for the Government's advances.
There is another question and that is the position of a depositor in a society who will find his deposit credited with trustee status, or a prospective depositor who, because of trustee status, may put his money into a building society. The other day we were given by the hon. Gentleman an imposing list of Government and other bodies which enjoy trustee status, but there are many humbler and smaller bodies which also enjoy it.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government is responsible for having conferred trustee status on parish councils, for a very good reason, namely, that the parish councils will he solvent. They have a rate-levying capacity which will keep them solvent. But, again, the question was not soundness but solvency, and here too a small society, a parish council of a society in comparison with such huge governments as one of the larger societies may be said to constitute, may be just as solvent, and the same considerations would apply: the question is again one of solvency.
4.30 p.m.
Then we were given another instance. We were told that when it was a question of, for instance, giving trustee status to shares in limited companies, it was almost always in the terms of a limitation framed on the size of the company—it had to have a capital of so much. I am not here to discuss the merits of such a limitation. The Economic Secretary and the Treasury must well know of a number of companies with comparatively small nominal capital and very large resources, and also a number of other companies with very large nominal capital and not very large resources. The two things do not always go together.
Be that as it may, the position of a trading company is entirely different from that of a building society. There is something in the risks of trade and changes may take place in the economic life of the country affecting companies of that sort. However, the Government themselves are choosing building societies as the channel for advances in connection with the building and improvement of houses. No doubt the Government themselves are convinced, and rightly convinced, that by and large building


societies are perfectly solvent bodies and not subject to the ordinary risks of commercial enterprises. When the building societies advertise their security as bricks and mortar, or something of that sort, there is something in that, considering the business which they carry on and the way in which they do so.
I now come to the last and most important point. The object of the Bill as a whole is not, we hope, to enable the Government to lend money to building societies. The main object is to get advances made on this type of house—the old, smallish house. For the purpose the Government have selected building societies as the most suitable tool. I do not say anything about the wisdom or sufficiency of that choice, but it has been made. At least they should use the tool to its best advantage.
Considering various parts of the country, especially the north, one finds that small building societies are in a better position to deal with this kind of property than are many of the larger societies. It is not an accident that the Halifax Building Society, a very large society, has dealt extensively with advances for this type of property.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) and I had a minor dispute
the other day as to whether 30 per cent. or 27 per cent. of its advances were for this sort of property. It depends on whether number or value is taken, but at any rate it is a substantial proportion. It is not an accident that the Halifax Society started in Yorkshire and has a very good connection in that part of the world.
There are other societies a little further south and others yet further north which have taken a similar course. The other day we heard about the Failsworth Society in Lancashire and the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) referred to what he called the "small, friendly society". There is a good deal in that, and if this job is to be done, why should the Government deny themselves the advantage of using these small societies, once they are satisfied that they are solvent?
If it is a choice, is it not right to sacrifice a little administrative convenience to get the job properly done? Is it not right in a matter of this sort

that the prevailing consideration should be whether the society can make a useful contribution towards the buying and improvement of these old, small houses?
On that test, there is a very strong positive case for including those societies on the lines of the Amendment and no case for saying that an Amendment of this sort, giving a wider discretion to the Registrar, would endanger the Government's advances or, at least equally important, the safety of the depositors' money.
It is particularly the case with small societies that the proportion of deposits to shares is apt to be rather small. There were the 12 merry men who were the depositors of the Failsworth Society and who with other depositors will be found in the pages of the Society's handbook. It is no accident that it works out in that way and we need not go into its causes.
In the interests of using every tool and using this good and available tool and in the belief that the Amendment will not endanger the money of the depositors or the money of the Government, I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. and learned Member, as I understand it, wishes to add a condition, that the societies should be able to meet the terms of Clause 2 (1) before getting trustee status or being entitled to advances. If a society is charging a low rate if interest, it will not be able to fulfil the requirements of that subsection, so that the Amendment would deprive such societies of trustee status, would it not?

Mr. Mitchison: I do not quite appreciate the hon. Member's point and that is probably my own fault. Clause 2 (1) simply provides for the repayment of advances made by the Government and for the payment of interest on those advances. I am certain that that is a financial matter to which the Registrar must primarily direct his attention. He must also consider the depositors, but the two go together.

Mr. Page: I am sorry that I did not make my question clear. If a building society is charging a low rate of interest —we have had the example of the Halifax Building Society—it will not be able to pay the rate of interest required of it under that subsection and would


therefore not be able to meet the condition which the hon. and learned Member wishes to insert.

Mr. Mitchison: Subsection (1) does not lay down any rate of interest. It simply says that the rate of interest is to be payable at such rates and at such times as the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, direct. In the White Paper there is an intimation of what the Minister intends to do. It has not escaped my notice that there is an Amendment which would enable changes to be made in the rate of interest. Nor has it escaped my attention that Mr. Speaker suggested that I should leave out of a recent Motion for recommittal some Amendments of my own which were directed to that matter. I cannot carry it any further at present. The hon. Member can guess that I would welcome some relaxation of that matter, but it does not affect these Amendments in the least. It is obvious that the Registrar must consider the ability to repay Government advances, and my contention is that the terms of the Amendment sufficiently provide for that.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in submitting these two Amendments, has thoughtfully provided us with an opportunity of reviewing the conditions which, in the Bill as it stands, the House has decided should be applied to all building societies seeking to establish trustee status. In particular, the second Amendment would put a special and additional task upon the Registrar and I should like to deal with that in a moment. What the hon. and learned Member is really proposing is that we should abandon some of the conditions laid down in Clause 1 and substitute his suggestion that the designation, when granted, should have been made as the result of considering the relation of assets to the liabilities of the building societies, and not, I imagine, to the £500,000 limit, which is one of the conditions proposed in Appendix II of the White Paper.
I wish to remind the Committee that the size qualification is only one of a number of conditions which have to be satisfied. We should look at all the conditions which have to be satisfied and not look at one in particular and seek

to remove it. In the view of the Government the conditions as laid down—they were extensively debated during the earlier stages of the Bill—are adequate and satisfactory and the right ones to impose before granting trustee status.

Mr. Mitchison: As I understand my own Amendment and the language of the Bill and the scheme, the only effect would be to remove one condition—the one about the size of the society. In return, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, it would put an additional duty on the Registrar.

Mr. Erroll: Yes. The discussion falls into two parts, whether the £500,000 limit should be retained and, if not, whether the alternative proposal contained in the Amendment would be adequate and satisfactory.
I should like to dispose of the argument as quickly as possible by saying that we believe it important to retain the size qualification. Taking it in conjunction with the other conditions proposed in Appendix II of the White Paper, we think it a more satisfactory way of testing the suitability of building societies for trustee status than the alternative proposed in the Amendment. We debated extensively whether the £500,000 limit was reasonable. I do not wish to detain the Committee by rehearsing those arguments again in detail, but I think I ought to remind hon. Members that size is of importance in order to command the necessary confidence, and that, generally speaking, trustee status securities are related to large and important bodies.
I accept the fact pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman that parish council loans have trustee status. But, as he also pointed out, parish councils are in a rather special position, since their solvency is guaranteed by their ability to levy rates which, in turn, can be enforced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs. The parish councils were, in fact, given trustee status only in 1958 by the Local Government Act of that year.
The greater part of local authority revenue comes from rates which they are entitled by law to levy. That is quite a different situation from the finances of the building society. If the ratepayers


do not pay up, they may go to prison, but if a borrower of money from a building society does not pay up, it is a much more involved process.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: It was the hon. Gentleman who introduced Governments as a matter for comparison.

Mr. Erroll: Possibly, but it puts the creditworthiness of local authorities, however large or small, in quite a different class from that of building societies.
The real point is that by fixing the limit at £500,000 we have gone as low as we can. I think we should have been entitled to fix the limit at £1 million, but we wanted to come as far down as we could. By selecting the figure of £500,000 we are taking in about 243 building societies which will qualify on grounds of size alone and that represents, roughly, 97 per cent. of all the assets of the building society movement. We think that the societies which will fulfil all the requirements, and not just that of size alone, will represent about 88 per cent. of all the assets of the building society movement. So hon. Gentlemen will see that, by coming down to the figure of £500,000, we are taking in much the greater part of the assets of the movement as a whole.
The second Amendment suggests that the Registrar, when considering the suitability of a society for trustee status under Clause 1 should at the same time satisfy himself that it would be able to carry out its obligations under Clause 2 (1). In other words, at the time trustee status is being sought the Registrar should examine the society from the point of view of its suitability for receiving loans from the Government. We have studied this matter carefully to see what should best be done and we have come to the conclusion that that would be putting the cart before the horse. The point is that there may well be a number of societies which will apply for trustee status, but will not seek to avail themselves of the obligations under Clause 2. It would be a limitation if, in
applying for trustee status, the societies had at the same time to satisfy the Registrar that they were suitable for receiving Government loans. Although one might argue that virtually all societies would so be able to satisfy the Registrar, it would involve a good deal of additional work for the Registrar

which otherwise might never have to be carried out. Therefore, we think that it would be better to adhere to the arrangements proposed in the Bill as drafted.
I wish to reassure the Committee—if further reassurance be needed—regarding the security of advances from the Government, that the Registrar's powers of designation under Clause 1 are discretionary even if all the conditions in Appendix II of the White Paper are carried out. Even if a society fulfils the conditions laid down in the Regulations to be tabled, the Registrar has power under the Bill to withhold designation for the purposes of Clause 1, if he considers, for example, that on the record of the society's past policies that designation is not warranted. The safeguards are there. I submit to the Committee that the arrangements already proposed in the Bill are the most satisfactory, and I hope, therefore, that these Amendments will not be pressed to a Division.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I wish to ask one or two questions, and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to answer them, since this part of the Bill also applies to Scotland.
The Economic Secretary said that size is important because it will command the necessary confidence. It seems to me that the granting of trustee status gives to the societies which get it a great advantage over societies which do not get it. From the words of the Minister, it seems to me that it suggests that the societies which are under the £500,000 mark will be considered by people from the time that trustee status is given as societies in which they could not really have confidence since the Government themselves have decided that they cannot have confidence in them.
We are told that publication will be made in a number of gazettes, and one of them is the Edinburgh Gazette. Anyone who is thinking of investing will look at the Edinburgh Gazette to find how many, if any, of the Scottish societies have been able to get trustee status. It seems to me that those who in the future wish to invest will be much more ready to invest in the societies which are given trustee status than in those which are not, although many of us know and the Government know that the case made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering


(Mr. Mitchison) is a very sound one, that some of the smaller societies are most trustworthy societies in which we can have confidence.
The Under-Secretary of State must have read the Amendment. I imagine that he must have looked at the effect that it would have in Scotland and the effect which the Bill will have if it is left as it is. I want the Under-Secretary to tell me how many purely Scottish building societies will be able to satisfy the one condition with which I am now dealing. This is of the greatest importance. I want to ensure that if there are savings in Scotland they shall, if possible, go into Scottish building societies. It is of the greatest importance that the Under-Secretary should be able to give me that information.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): The answer to the hon. Lady is that there are four such societies in Scotland. The hon. Lady will realise that many English firms have a great deal of Scottish business and some Scottish firms have a great deal of English business. We have looked at this matter with very great care and concern—we are concerned for the welfare of our Scottish building societies—and I assure the hon. Lady that the border between England and Scotland makes no difference here and that what applies in England to the smaller or larger societies will also apply in Scotland.

Miss Herbison: I know that this part of the Bill applies to the United Kingdom, so that whatever conditions apply to building societies in England will apply to those in Scotland. That refers to the conditions as they are in the Bill or as they will be when amended.
The Under-Secretary has been able to tell us that there are four societies in Scotland which would satisfy the one condition with which I have dealt. How many trustworthy Scottish societies will not? Is not the hon. Gentleman very much afraid that this will do great damage to reputable, trustworthy Scottish societies, in which we can have real confidence, which will not get trustee status? Four is a small number for Scotland. It seems to me that the Under-Secretary should know the numbers in Scotland which will be ruled out by this one condition.

Mr. James H. Hoy: My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has made a very moderate request. The conditions in Scotland are somewhat different from those which obtain south of the Border. Scotland has much smaller communities. It may be that within those communities there are very good and reputable building societies meeting the needs of the localities. One would have thought—we are not for the moment arguing the merits of it—that the Joint Under-Secretary would have been able to supply the information for which my hon. Friend has asked. Surely when the list was being prepared the Scottish Office must have known how many would qualify for trustee status and how many would be debarred because they failed to reach the required level of deposits. Perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary can now add a little more information and complete the picture for Scotland. He has said that four societies will qualify. How many will be disqualified by the Bill?

Mr. J. N. Browne: I apologise to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) but I have not got that figure at the moment. What I can tell him is that we have looked at this matter with great care and have satisfied ourselves that the smaller Scottish societies—I agree with everything that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has said about them; I am sure that their enterprise will soon bring them up to the £500,000 status—will not suffer any more than the equivalent societies in England.

Mr. Mitchison: I think my hon. Friends have taken a very good instance. There was a very large Scottish society, with assets of well over £500,000, which got into trouble lately and had to be taken over by an English society.
When I look at these small Scottish societies, of which there seem to be a very large number—I do not wish to advertise any in particular—many of them seem to me to be quite aggressively solvent but on what is obviously a small and local scale. They are very venturesome in their names. Some of them are picturesque and beautiful. "The Dumfries and Galloway Benefit Friendly and Building Society" is an attractive name in itself. But I call it a little impertinent even for a Scottish society to call itself the "Improved Edinburgh". It is only


in Glasgow that that sort of name would go down, and the society appears to be an Edinburgh one.
There are many others, and two things are clear if one looks at the list of them: first, that Scotland is very much a country where this kind of advance is being done by small local societies; secondly, that the Scots have not lost their reputation for soundness and thrift. Most of the societies—I would not say all—on a cursory examination look fully as entitled to credit as the late Scottish Amicable.
I suggest to the Government that they are taking much too narrow a view of this matter when they insist on size and prefer size to the good sense of the Registrar and his knowledge of the record of the societies, and that surely counts for something because even the "Improved Edinburgh" was established in 1847.
I believe that what is happening here is that the convenience of the Treasury and administrative simplicity is being preferred to the real interests of the man who owns or wants to own a house and that the substantial object of the Bill is being neglected for financial reasons which seem to me to be of very doubtful soundness and, anyhow, of much less importance than the real interests of the borrower and, I might add, of the stock of houses in this country. I advise my hon. Friends to support our Amendments in the Lobby when the time comes.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I add my voice to the pleas which have been addressed to the Government and I do so as one who has lived in Edinburgh for a very long time and at present has the privilege of representing a constituency of Edinburgh, a city where whenever a lawyer and an accountant meet together they form a building society or an investment trust.
I cannot help feeling that the actual test or qualification which the Government have put into the Bill is quite the wrong one. I am sure that what my hon. and learned Friend has just said is very much in the mind of these Scottish people—that the building society which has probably received the greatest publicity and which I believe to be the biggest Scottish building society—the Scottish Amicable—has been the one that has got into difficulties, while many of these smaller

societies which are doing a good job of work have not in fact done so.
The Joint Under-Secretary said that this is a matter in which Scotland will be treated in the same way as England, and that the same conditions will apply. What the hon. Gentleman forgets is that development in Scotland has been rather different from the development in England. That is what I feel has happened, and the growth of building societies has been rather different, too. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) has said, we have quite a considerable number of very good small building societies in Scotland, all of which are performing a very good job.
I do not know whether the Government have tried to find out anything about this, but I should not be surprised if they have not because we were told in the Scottish Standing Committee on the Deer Bill only yesterday that the Government were not interested in finding out information about Scotland. I am not surprised—

Mr. J. N. Browne: indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis: If the hon. Gentleman reads the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee, he will find that what I have said is correct. Therefore, I am not at all surprised that the Government have not bothered to find out very much about this matter in Scotland.
A very large number of the people in Edinburgh—more than in any other town in Scotland—go in for home ownership, and I should imagine that, if the facts were known, the greatest number of these people actually borrow from these smaller building societies. I think that is true. I do not know what the evidence of the hon. Gentleman is. I happen to have been born in Norwich. It is probable that, if I take my native town of Norwich, precisely the opposite may be the case, and most of the people there may borrow from the Huddersfield, the Abbey Road and other large building societies. I think they do in Norwich.
I may be quite wrong about this, but all I am asking is what have the Government done to try to find out if this is a very widespread method of borrowing in Scotland, as I think it is. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Leith, who also has considerable knowledge of this matter, and who meets people in Edinburgh, as I do, will agree that many of


them borrow from these very small reputable building societies. I should have thought, therefore, that the Government ought not simply to say that the conditions will be the same as apply in England, but should ask themselves whether in fact existing practices in Scotland are different from those in England.
Is the general pattern different from what it is in England? It may well be different, though I am not sure, but what have the Government done to try to find out if the pattern is different? I should have thought that there was some reason in Scotland to have looked at the matter rather differently. This is another case of our being strung along behind England, whether we like it or not. We are sick and tired of being strung along behind England. However, when we are, we ought at least to be satisfied that the Government are not just doing this because the Scottish Office is too weak to resist but that it has allowed Scotland to be strung along like this in the knowledge of the facts.

Mr. Frederic Harris: I thought the hon. Gentleman was making a point about his native town of Norwich.

Mr. Willis: I am very proud of my native town, but I happen to have been adopted by Scotland as one of its representatives, and I am one of its citizens at the present time. As the recent Cup-tie proved, the combination of Norwich and Scotland is a very good one indeed.
The point I was making is that when we are strung along behind England, or with England, on these matters, we want some assurance that it is being done in the knowledge of the facts as they exist in Scotland, and, up to the present, the Joint Under-Secretary, although I can see that he is now thirsting to give us the information, has not convinced my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee that this is in fact so. I hope the hon. Gentleman is now in a position to do this, and will give us the information.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) for giving me the chance to reply again. I am now in a position to answer a question put to me by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy).
It is a good thing to get the matter in proportion. There are 38 Scottish

societies, of which four will qualify under all the conditions, and eight will qualify on size alone. The hon. Member also asked me whether the pattern is different. It is very hard to find out the exact pattern of the business transacted by the societies, but I am advised that there is far more borrowing in Scotland from the big United Kingdom societies than there is from the very small Scottish societies. The general pattern of borrowing is really no different as between England and Scotland, and I can assure him once more that there is no need to look at Scotland differently from the way in which we look at England.

Mr. Hoy: I do not want to prolong the discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said he was not certain, and wanted to know the facts. What the Joint Under-Secretary has said simply bears out what I suggested in my first contribution to the debate—that because of the geography of Scotland and the dispersal of the population we find these small societies operating in smaller areas and for a smaller number of people. That is the matter which is at stake so far as the Bill is concerned—the rendering of a local service. While it may be true that the larger societies, and the largest of them all is what was the Scottish Amicable which has now been taken over by the Co-operative Permanent Building Society, tend to serve the masses of the people because of where their offices are situated, they do not give that service in the more remote areas.
What I want to impress on the Joint Under-Secretary is that if he insists upon pressing the Bill as it stands it will make these very good small societies, which have rendered such a good social service in so many parts of Scotland, feel that they have been placed in a position inferior to that of the larger building societies. If he is doing that, let him do it with his eyes open, but I do not think it will meet with the approval of the people in a large part of Scotland who invest in these building societies.

Miss Herbison: I feel that we cannot let this matter go without a few more words. We have been able by our questions to get from the Joint Under-Secretary the relevant figures, but the hon. Gentleman will insist that this matter was


very carefully examined by his Minister and by the Department. When, however, he did not know the figures, or the answers to these simple questions, it seems to me that little or no examination of what was entailed had been given to it, at least by the Scottish Office, but that the Scottish Office had accepted the advice of an English Minister that this was the kind of thing that ought to be done.

Mr. Nixon Browne: The hon. Lady brings to all our debates bitterness which is not borne out by the facts. She knows quite well that this was debated and answered on behalf of my right hon. Friend by a Treasury Minister. She insists on dragging in the Joint Under-Secretary, and I am quite prepared to answer, but I did not come to the discussion on this particular Clause with all the facts and figures in front of me. It is not wise to shoot figures at the hon. Lady. I must get the figures verified before I give them to the House.

Miss Herbison: I am very sorry indeed if the Minister considers it bitterness if one says that the Minister who has been, during the whole of the discussion on the Bill, the responsible Minister for Scotland, tells us that he did not have these figures. Now the Scottish Office have produced the figures. This is a Bill that applies to Scotland equally as to England and Wales, and it seems to me that at least one Minister, of all the Ministers we have in the Scottish Office, ought to have known these figures when consideration was being given to the matter. I throw back at the Minister the fact that he

is so thin skinned when he is found out and when he does not know the answers that he attributes it to bitterness. I am not the least bit bitter, but I am terribly anxious about the good name of Scotland and that these little building societies should have fair play. They will not be having fair play if this Amendment is not accepted.

From the figures which the hon. Gentleman has now given we find that at least 26 out of 38 of these small building societies will not be able to get trustee status. I am informed that that is a much bigger propertion than there will be for England and Wales taken together. In other words, the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) are borne out by these figures and show that because of our perhaps isolated places these little building societies, trustworthy organisations, which have been doing a very good job are to be put at a disadvantage.

Finally, I say to the Joint Under-Secretary of State that if he is deputed by the Secretary of State for Scotland to pilot through a Bill then it behoves him to get the information that is relevant to the Bill and not to complain when hon. Members on this side of the Committee, either from the Front Bench or from the back benches, ask for that information. We are most dissatisfied with the answers that we have been given and we mean to divide on these Amendments.

Question put, That "its assets and liabilities" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 251, Noes 207.

Division No. 54.]
AYES
[5.14 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Cooke, Robert


Aitken, W. T.
Bishop, F. P.
Cooper, A. E.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Anstruther-Gray, Major sir William
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Arbuthnot, John
Braine, B, R.
Corfield, F. V.


Armstrong, C. W.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Ashton, H.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr, J. M.
Browne, J. Nixon (Graigton)
Crowder, petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Bryan, P.
Cunningham, Knox


Balniel, Lord
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Currie, G. B. H.


Barber, Anthony
Burden, F. F. A.
Dance, J. C. G.


Barlow, Sir John
Butcher, Sir Herbert
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Barter, John
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
de Ferranti, Basil


Batsford, Brian
Campbell, Sir David
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Carr, Robert
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Beamish, Col, Tufton
Cary, Sir Robert
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Channon, H. P. C.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Chichester-Clark, R.
du Cann, E. D. L.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Cole, Norman
Duncan, Sir James


Bingham, R. M.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David




Elliott, R. W. (Nc'castle upon Tyne, N.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Pott, H. P.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Powell, J. Enoch


Errington, Sir Eric
Kershaw, J. A.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Erroll, F. J.
Kimball, M.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, w.)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lagden, G. W.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Fell, A.
Lambton, Viscount
Profumo, J. D.


Fisher, Nigel
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Redmayne, M.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Rees-Davies, W, R.


Forrest, G.
Leather, E. H. C.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Fort, R.
Leavey, J. A.
Renton, D. L. M.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Leburn, W. G.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Freeth, Denzil
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Hecley)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Robertson, Sir David


Gammans, Lady
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Longden, Gilbert
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Gibson-Watt, D.
Loveys, Walter H.
Russell, R. S.


Glover, D.
Lucas, Sir Joselyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Godber, J. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sharpies, R. C.


Goodhart, Philip
McAdden, S. J.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, w.)


Gough, C. F. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Gower, H. R.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Speir, R. M.


Green, A.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Grimond, J.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maddan, Martin
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Gurden, Harold
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Storey, S.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hare, Rt. Hon. J, H.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Marshall, Douglas
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hay, John
Mathew, R.
Temple, John M.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mawby, R. L.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Vane, W. M. F.


Hobson, John Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Holt, A. F.
Neave, Airey
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hope, Lord John
Nicholls, Harmar
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Horobin, Sir Ian
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Wall, Patrick


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Howard, John (Test)
Oakshott, H. D.
Webster, David


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Osborne, C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Page, R. C.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Wood, Hon. R.


Iremonger, T. L.
Partridge, E.
Woollam, John Victor


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peel, W. J.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth



Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pitman, I. J.
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Mr. Finlay.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Braddook, Mrs. Elizabeth
Cronin, J. D.


Ainsley, J. W.
Brookway, A. F.
Crossman, R. H. S.


Albu, A. H.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Awbery, S. S.
Burke, W. A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Burton, Miss F. E.
Deer, G.


Balfour, A.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
do Freitas, Geoffrey


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Callaghan, L. J.
Delargy, H. J.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Diamond, John


Benson, Sir George
Champion, A. J.
Dodds, N. N.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Chapman, W. D.
Donnelly, D. L.


Blackburn, F.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Blyton, W. R.
Cliffe, Michael
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Boardman, H.
Clunie, J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Coldrick, W.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Bowies, F. G.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)


Boyd, T. C.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)







Fernyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
McCann, J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Fletcher, Eric
MacColl, J. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Foot, D. M.
MacDermot, Niall
Ross, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Royle, C.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McLeavy, Frank
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Gibson, C. W.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Greenwood, Anthony
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mallalieu J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Skeffington, A. M.


Grey, C. F.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. dames (Llanelly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mayhew, C. P.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hamilton, W. W.
Mellish, R. J.
Snow, J. W.


Hannan, W.
Messer, Sir F.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Sparks, J. A.


Hastings, S.
Monslow, W.
Steele, T.


Hayman, F. H.
Moody, A. S.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Herbison, Miss M.
Moss, R.
Swingler, S. T.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Moyle, A.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Mulley, F. W.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Holman, P.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Thornton, E.


Houghton, Douglas
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Timmons, J.


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hoy, J. H.
Oram, A. E.
Usborne, H. C.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oswald, T.
Viant, S. P.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Padley, W. E.
Warbey, W. N.


Hunter, A. E.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Watkins, T. E.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paling, Will T, (Dewsbury)
Weitzman, D.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Parker, J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Parkin, B. T.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Pearson, A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St.Pncs. S.)
Pentland, N.
Willey, Frederick


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Popplewell, E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Prentice, R. E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, s.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Winterbottom, Richard


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Probert, A. R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Woof, R. E.


Kenyon, C.
Randall, H. E.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rankin, John
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Ledger, R. J.
Redhead, E. C.
Zilliacus, K.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Reeves, J.



Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Reid, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lindgren, G. S.
Rhodes, H.
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO MAKE GRANTS TOWARDS CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS.)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I beg to move, in page 4, line 34, at the end to insert:
(b) a wash-hand basin.
The Amendment follows a promise that we would consider this matter, after it had been put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) at an earlier stage. The Amendment simply adds a wash-hand basin to the four items originally listed in the Bill as standard amenities, so making five standard amenities with which a house must be provided in order to attract a standard grant.

Mr. Mitchison: We thank the hon. Member and his right hon. Friend for their valuable contribution to the cause of national cleanliness.

Amendment agreed to.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, in pace 5, line 8, at the end to insert:
(4) An application under this section must also contain a statement either that the applicant is the occupier of the dwelling or that the occupier has consented in writing to the making of the application.
In Committee, a similar Amendment was made to the Scottish Part of the Bill, and this brings England into line with Scotland.

Mr. G. Lindgren: We are glad that on this occasion England follows Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, in page 5, line 8, at the end to insert:
(5) Where the works include the provision of a hot water supply, their execution must include the connection of the supply to a sink as well as to the bath or shower and the wash-hand basin.
This, too, follows an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend and myself in Committee. I referred to certain drafting difficulties, which the ingenious Parliamentary draftsmen have now been able to circumvent, and I hope that the Amendment is acceptable to the Committee.

Mr. Mitchison: Members on this side would again like to thank the Government. We are glad to see that, unable to face the difficulties of defining a kitchen sink, they have just called it a sink and left it at that.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 5, line 11, at the end to add:
unless the dwelling was provided by the conversion before the end of the year nineteen hundred and fifty-eight of a building erected before the end of the year nineteen hundred and forty-four".
This matter was touched on, but not discussed at any length, in Committee. It concerns the question what should be done about the more recent conversions. It has always been the view of the Government that it should not be made possible for somebody who has built a house since the end of the war, but has left out one of the standard amenities, as we call them, to claim a Government grant now.
But a post-war conversion position is rather different. All kinds of conversions of older houses have been taking place since the war, and the Amendment makes no difference to the requirement that the house must be built before 1944. It appears to the Government, however, that it is rather difficult to argue that there is a fundamental difference in whether the conversion of an older house takes place before or after the end of 1944: indeed, in some cases it might be rather difficult to track back and discover the exact date at which the conversion was made.
At the same time, the Government have no desire to encourage for the future any conversions which are not complete conversions, and it will remain the case that a conversion grant will be given only

where a complete and wholly satisfactory conversion has been carried out, in the view of the local authority. The Amendment will not apply to any conversions carried out after the end of 1958.
On balance, it appears to the Government that it is advantageous that someone who has carried out a conversion between 1944 and 1958 without supplying all the standard amenities should not be debarred from obtaining a standard grant. In the view of the Government the only people who would suffer if the Bill were left unamended would be the tenants of these not very satisfactorily converted premises. If we make the Amendment it will be to the advantage of the tenants living in these houses which have been inadequately converted, because they will unquestionably be brought up to a better standard. At the same time, we shall be fully safeguarding the position for the future.

Mr. Page: I want to express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend for moving the Amendment. This is a matter which I urged in Committee. The Amendment entirely covers the following one, in my name—which, even if you selected it, Sir Gordon, I would not now wish to move. My Amendment was put on the Notice Paper before that of my right hon. Friend. I am grateful to him for covering the point that I raised, and I am sure that the Amendment will be benecial in many cases where an older house has been divided since the war and a proper conversion has not been made.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I thank my right hon. Friend for accepting the principle of our Amendment. I see that it will apply also to Scotland.

Mr. Willis: It has not been moved in respect of Scotland.

Mr. William Ross: The Minister may have changed his mind.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: I believe that it was the pressure of my colleagues and myself which helped to obtain the Amendment. This is another case of England following Scotland.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: I would not have been provoked into saying a word about this had it not been for the remarks we have just


heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. M. Clark Hutchison). I was intrigued, because this Amendment was down for an earlier stage of the Bill and the Minister would not accept it.

Mr. H. Brooke: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hoy: Oh, yes. It does not matter which way the Minister moves his head, vertically or horizontally. I was a little surprised to hear him say that it had not been discussed very much. It was moved. He said that it had had only very little discussion, which must have meant that my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) were not present at the time. If they had been I am certain that they would have discussed it. I take it that the Minister is—

Mr. Clark Hutchison: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was present.

Mr. Hoy: He may have been present, but it appears that even the Minister did not know anything about the Amendment. It is strange to hear that my hon. Friend overlooked it. It is not a habit of his. Perhaps he was reserving what he had to say for this stage. It may be that the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has moved covers also the identical one later on the Notice Paper in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Amendment is an improvement. Where these houses have been badly built, provision should be made for improving them. That is my personal opinion. I have no objection to the Amendment.

Mr. Willis: I think that we are not now discussing the Amendment in identical terms in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland. When we reach that Scottish Amendment I hope that we shall be able to subject the Joint Under-Secretary of State to the usual rather rigorous cross-examination.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): Only one Amendment has been moved.

Mr. Mitchison: Before the Committee comes to a decision on this matter I would say, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that we welcome the Amendment. We think it right that there should be provision for the case of past conver-

sions. For many years after the war a good many dwellings were provided by conversion, particularly in London, though they are not always reckoned in favour of the Labour Party when the Government are counting the number of houses that have been built on both sides. We are not concerned with that point today. We welcome the Amendment as it affects the past. We share the views of the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill ought not to apply to people in the future. There is obviously no case for encouraging people to convert in the future and then get a satisfactory grant afterwards.

Mr. H. Brooke: I am grateful for what has been said about the Amendment on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) seemed to be under the impression that I had resisted an Amendment of this character at an earlier stage. The reason I said that it had been briefly touched upon was that two of my hon. Friends—they deserve full credit for it—raised the point during the discussion of a Government Amendment of a different character. In the light of what they said, the Government decided to amend the Bill on the lines they suggested.

Mr. Ross: I do not want it to be thought that I omitted any duty of mine when this matter was raised. As the Minister has said, it was raised at an earlier stage. I recollect that when this point was touched upon we received contradictory advice from the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who, evidently, had not been briefed, or not briefed very well. Later, he let the Committee know that he had been quite wrong. It is not an unusual proceeding for the hon. Gentleman to change his mind, in view of later proceedings. The Minister is quite right. He said he would look at it and he is now giving us the benefit of his look.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR STANDARD GRANT.)

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to the provisions of section (Applications for standard grant at instance of tenants (England and Wales)) of this Act".

The Deputy-Chairman: I understand that it would be convenient to the Committee to discuss also the Amendment in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), in Clause 20, page 13, line 29, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to the provisions of section (Applications for standard grant at instance of tenants (Scotland)) of this Act".

Mr. Mitchison: These two Amendments are similar in terms and are intended to have a similar result in the two countries. I hope I may refer not only to the Scottish Amendment but to the two proposed new Clauses indicated in both Amendments.
The Bill as presented only allows application for a standard grant to be made by a person who is either the complete owner or has a long leasehold interest in the property. That appears in subsection (3) of the English part of the Bill. There have to be fifty years unexpired, and there is a similar provision in the Scottish part of the Bill. There will be many cases where landlords will not apply. Indeed, so far as I can judge, the real risk about the Bill is simply that. The landlord may not care to apply in respect of oldish and small-value houses, which are the houses intended to benefit by these provisions, regarding it, from the sheer investment point of view, as not worth while his having to pay half of the cost—because that is what it amounts to under the terms of the Bill.
I feel certain that the Committee would not wish that to happen, but we on this side are prepared to go one stage further than not wishing it to happen. We desire it to be possible for the occupant, being a tenant, to make his landlord apply for a standard grant. There will be cases where the landlord will not necessarily be the owner or the long-lease holder. We recognise that, and our intention is that the payment of the half not covered by grant will be made by the person who will really benefit, that is to say, the owner or the long-lease holder. That is, of course, the intention of the Bill, and that is the reason why the Bill contains that qualification.
I come to the machinery provisions of the Clause. If a tenant thinks that the house in which he lives is one for which a standard grant could properly be made, he can serve a tenant's notice on the

landlord requiring an application to be made for a standard grant, whether for one or two of the standard amenities, whatever is lacking. Subsection (2) of the proposed new Clause provides for the landlord's passing the notice on—or, strictly, a copy of the notice—to his superior landlord, if he is not the owner or the long-lease holder. In that way we shall find the man who is qualified, in the terms of the Bill, by his freehold or long leasehold interest to make the application.
I see no practical difficulty whatever in that. In the great majority of cases the landlord probably will be that person. I do not expect that the cases in which there is any long line of freeholders and lessees of various kinds before we get to the actual tenant-occupier will be many. The machinery must, of course, be provided and I see no great complication in it. When the notice passed on in this way reaches the man who I shall now call the owner, omitting the reference to long leasehold, it is then his duty to make the proposed application. If
it is approved by the local authority, it is he who will have to carry out the work and receive the standard grant. That seems to be right, for it is he who will benefit by it.
Then I come to some provisions which
are really enforcement provisions but, first, I want to say a word or two about the position as regards rent. These improvements, like any others made in a controlled house, will entitle the landlord to make an increase in rent on an 8 per cent. basis of his actual expenditure in the terms described in the recent Rent Act. In other houses it will be a matter for negotiation between the landlord and the tenant. No doubt the tenant will have had that in mind in deciding whether to serve the tenant's notice and get the work done.
I want to say one thing quite generally, and this goes in support of the Bill itself as well as in support of the Amendment. I believe that in most cases—not in all—a tenant will gladly pay a reasonable additional rent for standard amenities of this kind. They are things which ought to be in any house and, apart altogether from the relations between landlord and tenant and the owner of a house, and so on, we ought to ensure that the reluctance of a landlord to spend money from an investment point of view ought not


to prevent the simple improvements which the Bill is designed to effect.
Now I come to enforcement. Hon. Members will have noticed that, so far, there has been nothing about time in this proposal. For a time we suggest that we should depend on the enforcement provisions. The first relates to a period of three months after the tenant's notice has been served. The subsection provides that if nothing has been done during that time, that is to say, if the owner has not, in fact, made the application, three months is plenty of time to serve it down a line of lessees—if there is such a line—and the tenant may himself make the proposed application.
Then one has to deal with the question of whether he has the paper qualification required in subsection (3) of Clause 5. Therefore, he has to be deemed to make it on behalf of the owner. It is then a question for a local authority whether it approves the application. It will, of course, be bound to approve it in such cases, just as much or as little as it would be bound to do so if it were made by the owner on his own account.
The tenant may carry out the specified work itself, that is, the standard grant work. He may take and keep the grant in respect of it on his own account. He can then recover from the owner the cost of the work, less the grant which he the tenant has kept. In this subsection we give him the right, if he chooses—I dare say that if there were any doubts in the matter he would so choose—to collect the money from his own landlord instead of from the ultimate owner. That, in time, would involve an adjustment of accounts between the two, but we have not got that far in the Clause.
5.45 p.m.
That is the first sanction and it is a case only of no application having been made, although a notice to make it has been served. The second sanction is that, whether or not such an application has been made, if, at the end of six months, the works have not, in fact, been completed, the tenant may give to the local authority, what he has not been bound to give before and is not bound to give now unless he chooses, a copy of the original tenant's notice. I have in mind the landlord's undertaking to do

repairs under the Rent Act, in which we put in six months and were told that was required. We think that it is more than enough for the purpose. That notice will have contained a specification of the works required to be done, the cost, and so on. That is already in the Bill.
The local authority may then, if it chooses—it is not obliged to do it—give notice to the owner or the tenant's landlord, for the same sort of reason I indicated in relation to the tenant's notice, requiring that person to carry out the work. He is given the notice to specify a period. It must not be less than 21 days. Hon. Members will recognise that we are now getting into the field of notice to execute works for the purpose of making a house fit. That is where the 21 days comes from and the nature of this provision. It is optional on the local authority; it need not do it if it does not so choose.
If it takes that step and the notice is not complied with at the end of the specified time, it may, as it could do in connection with the execution of work under the Housing Acts, itself do the work and recover the cost from the person it had required to do it. That, again, follows in a simplified form the works provisions of the Housing Acts. Subsection (7) applies certain charging provisions of the Housing Acts to this type of case. I need not go into it in detail. It is a little simpler than similar provisions in the Housing Acts, because we have not raised any question of interest due to the local authority. On a small matter such as this, that would not amount to very much and it is only a discretionary power.
Lastly, we have to provide, and do provide, that the tenant's immediate landlord and the owner of the property are to settle accounts between them. It is suggested that they should do so in accordance with their respective interests. If, for instance, the immediate landlord is a larger leaseholder, he would have a comparatively small interest in the property as a whole and the owner would either be the actual owner, or the long leaseholder intended in the Bill. It ought not to be a difficult matter to agree that and the sums involved will not be very large. Failing agreement, they can go to the county court and get it settled that way.
Those are the provisions we put forward. I suppose that any Clause of this kind is bound to look a little complicated. Those who wish to make critical remarks about lawyers and Clauses can easily find an opportunity of doing so, but what we have to look at in a case of this kind is how it is going to work for the people concerned. For the tenant, at any rate, it is fairly simple. If his landlord shows no intention of carrying out these simple improvements he can serve a tenant's notice and, when he has done that, I expect that in the majority of cases the default provisions will be sufficient, if nothing else is sufficient, to ensure that the landlord does the job, even though without such a notice he might never have done it. In other cases, all that the tenant needs to do is to choose whether he would like to do it or to see whether the local authority will do it. He does that at different stages, but it is a simple choice with which I think no tenant would find much difficulty.
Many tenants carry out repairs to houses which they are under no obligation to carry out. They do it because they have to live in the houses and because they cannot otherwise get the work done. In the same way, I do not think that the majority of tenants would find it difficult to do these fairly simple things.
I agree that the position looks a little more complicated between the tenant's landlord and the ultimate owner, It may be a little more complicated in some cases, but I do not believe that the complications are formidable. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like the machinery, there is enough in it to convince any reasonable person that the process is practicable. If they prefer to make alterations in the machinery, we on this side of the Committee certainly will not object, but what is proposed here is sufficient to show that there is no inherent difficulty in providing the natural machinery.
I want next to say a word or two about the local authorities. Any responsible local authority nowadays is, I think, interested in the provision of these standard amenities in any house in its district, whether that house belongs to the local authority or not. We are here dealing with houses not belonging to the local authority, but in practically all cases, although not quite all, the local authority is the sanitary authority and its concern

with these houses, particularly with the old houses most affected by the Bill, lies in the maintenance of a reasonable standard of health and the cleanliness which goes with it. As a sanitary authority it has a public responsibility as an elected body, to put it more broadly, concerned with the health of the people in its area.
In addition, if it is a far-sighted local authority it will look at the housing problem in its area not just as a matter of individual houses or individual interests but as one of a stock of houses which will pass from the local authority as it is now constituted to another local authority in the future. I am not for the moment talking about municipalisation but simply regarding housing in the sense of a public service. There is a stock of houses for which some responsibility will be accepted by the aldermen and councillors, whoever they may be, who succeed the aldermen and councillors now sitting on the local authority.
In short, a municipal or a rural district stock of houses is the responsibility of the council constituted at the moment, just as the national stock of houses is the responsibility of the Minister of Housing and Local Government for the time being. I believe that that is the way in which far-sighted local authorities look at the houses with which they have to deal, whether as a housing authority or as a sanitary authority.
It is, therefore, right that they should have the opportunity of stepping in both when the provisions of the Bill relating to the landlord have failed and when the provisions of the Bill relating to the tenant have failed and there is no other way of getting the work done. That is the reason for giving the local authority discretionary default powers. It is right that they should be discretionary, because I believe that in many cases the Bill will raise difficult questions of what is practicable, as well as other considerations which we shall reach on later Amendments dealing with other responsibilities of the local authority in connection with the way in which the house, however built, is occupied.
I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will not resent the proposal, because it imposes a certain liability on landlords. That is exactly what it does and what it is intended to do. It is intended to be a


means by which the man who lives in the house, the tenant, can oblige the landlord to spend out of private money the counterpart of what the Bill provides out of public money. A man cannot be a landlord in this country nowadays and treat his investment purely as a matter of a monetary return. I hope that we all recognise that by becoming a landlord he assumes certain social responsibilities. Those responsibilities have not hitherto been recognised in relation to the standard amenities mentioned in the Bill.
Unless the Amendment, or something like it is accepted, at the end of the day it will be the owner of the house or the long lessee who decides whether No. 3, Paradise Row—anything called Paradise Row usually consists of the worst houses —should at long last have a hot water supply and a bath. In fact, this is a public matter, and it ought not to be left to landlords to take the final decision. We may provide them with the facilities, but nothing in the Bill at present obliges them to make any use of those facilities. If a decision is not to be made in relation to private property by the local authority —and that is not a matter which I am arguing today—then it is clear that the tenant, the man who has to live in the house, is the person who ought to be entitled to make such a decision in relation to these simple and comparatively inexpensive but absolutely necessary concomitants of modern life.

Mr. F. Harris: I will detain the Committee for only a few minutes, but I have listened to the entire discussion this afternoon with the intention of intervening at this stage. I listened very carefully to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I meet this problem in my constituency, and I am very much in sympathy with the view which has been expressed in Committee this afternoon. Whether what appears to be a lawyers' paradise in the solution put before us is the right solution is a matter on which I presume that the Minister will shortly advise us.
I meet the problem in many ways. When a tenant has applied to his local authority for a certificate of disrepair I have often wondered whether, within reason, the local authority, if it thought wise and reasonable, should not be allowed to make a stipulation laying

down the provision of amenities of this kind, which we should all like to see in every house in the country. The hon. and learned Member rightly said that this should be a discretionary power for the local authority.
6.0 p.m.
I realise only too well that possibly many houses could not be adapted in every one of these aspects. That is a very obvious difficulty which might face a local authority. Speaking for myself, for tenants and, I think, in the long run, for landlords in my constituency, I should like to see this become a real possibility. I feel that there is something in it. I realise, too, that we may come across owners who might have a problem in facing up to the financial obligation that this may put upon them, particularly if it became a very extensive obligation. Possibly the expense in one house would be different from the expense in another, because of the difficulty of carrying out the actual work. Nevertheless, I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Kettering that one cannot casually be a landlord in these days. It may be that some people run into difficulties in inheriting, property and try to keep the houses going, but, after all, it is the responsibility of all of us to endeavour to secure that the houses in which tenants are living are as habitable as we should like them to be and certainly as habitable as possible.
Speaking on behalf of my own Croydon authority, which I know has come very much under scrutiny of late —I will not involve myself in that argument—it too would like in many respects to see this type of stipulation brought into being in some way. I am not suggesting that this is the right way to tackle it. I am no lawyer and I find it too complicated to follow in that respect. I have come across this quite frequently in my constituency. I do not know what the Minister will say in reply, but I wish that we could somehow arrive at the ability to have these things put into effect, because undoubtedly there are many tenants in the country who should be entitled to expect this as a minimum standard of their tenancy and their occupation.
I realise the complications and difficulties. Therefore, without committing


myself too far, may I say that I sympathise very much with what the hon. and learned Member has put forward to the Committee this afternoon.

Mr. Ross: Before the hon. Member sits down, do I understand that he agrees that a landlord, who may have over £20 a week, should get the subsidy to improve his property?

Mr. Harris: I do not quite know what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has intervened about. The problem to which he is referring is in regard to council houses.

Mr. Ross: No. I am pointing out that these are private houses. We are giving a subsidy to a landlord without a means test. I thought that the hon. Member would have been objecting to that.

Mr. Harris: If this is an indirect point in regard to some activities of our local Croydon authority of late, perhaps I may be permitted to say that I feel that our local authority is very alive to all these problems.

Mr. James MacColl: I should like to commend to the Committee the new Clause and the Amendment in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). The world is a place of compromise, and the House of Commons is particularly a place of compromise.
I will not say that every word of the new Clause fills me with enthusiasm. For example, the words "county court" appear in it. I generally feel a little chilly if I see any proposals for applications to the county court.

Mr. Mitchison: It is only the landlord.

Mr. MacColl: My hon. and learned Friend says that it is only the landlord. I suspect that when people go to the county court it is, on the whole, the poor man who is liable to come out at the end of it having lost. Therefore, I am not very happy about that, but I have to live with my hon. and learned Friend. We have many happy hours together. Therefore, I would gladly accept it as a compromise, because the principle behind it is an excellent one.
There cannot be any case for a situation in which the person who is occupying the house, who knows the inconveniences of the house and suffers from them,

should be the person who is the least consulted. That is what will happen unless something like the new Clause is inserted in the Bill. In the Bill as it stands at the moment the landlord holds all the cards. He can compel the council to make a grant or he can shrug his shoulders and say that he is not interested in improving his property and will not bother to do it, and that is the end of the matter. The power of the tenant at the moment, even with the Amendment which we have only just passed, is limited. It is not a power of imposing pressure in order to have improvement carried out. The tenant ought to be in a position to have these improvements made.
If, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the object of the Bill is to have house property improved, the person who has the most incentive to have improvements made is the tenant, because he knows what it is like to have inadequate lavatory facilities, inadequate heating, inadequate washing accommodation, and so on. The landlord is remote from the house. He does not live in it. He looks at it purely in terms of financial return, what he will get by way of rent and whether the saleable value of the house will be increased.
From the tenant's point of view these are human problems. They are problems for the family. They are problems for living. There is a great incentive for him. Therefore, to put something of this character in the Bill would very much increase the pressure for having more improvements made, which is what the right hon. Gentleman wants to do.

Mr. Albert Evans: The Committee will welcome the enlightenment that has come from Croydon this afternoon, and I am sure that we are glad to know that the Croydon housing authority is alive to the need to provide adequate amenities and will continue in its progressive outlook in relation to houses. It is very welcome to the Committee to hear the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in this proposal.
The Committee should acknowledge the very clear way in which my hon. and learned Friend outlined the provisions of the new Clause. It is a long and elaborate


Clause. Necessarily it must be so. I am not a lawyer and I am rather suspicious of the confused jargon of lawyers. Nevertheless, on this occasion it seems to be clear enough for even the least lawyer-like person to understand. We are indebted to my hon. and learned Friend for the work he has put into the careful and simple phrasing of the new Clause.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that the purpose of the provisions relating to standard amenities is that the older houses should be provided with the basic standard amenities. We all want to do that. I submit to the Minister that we shall fail in that purpose, unless we manage to impose some pressure on the landlord. Owner occupiers may, in numbers, take advantage of the provisions, take the grants and provide the amenities. Some of the better landlords may do likewise, but the bulk of this old property without the standard amenities is in the hands of owners who, in the past, have not shown very much care for the amenities of the tenants. The central problem is to make the reluctant landlord take advantage of the grant and provide the standard amenities. That is the heart of the problem. We know from experience that if we leave that category of landlord without some inducement, he will fail to do what we all want him to do.
From the failure of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, we know that this category of landlord is reluctant to improve his property. That much has been established. The aim of that Act was good, but the inducement to the landlord was insufficient and we found that owners of this class of property, which we wish to be improved, failed to carry out the provisions of the Act. We need, therefore, to exert pressure on these landlords if we are to achieve the minimum purpose of this part of the Bill.
Without examining every part of the new Clause, I must say that its proposals are an honest and straightforward attempt to achieve the object which we desire and to apply the necessary pressure upon this category of reluctant landlords, so that we know that there is a chance of these standard amenities being put into the very houses that need them.
I hope that for the sake of the effective working of this part of his own Bill, the

Minister will give the matter favourable consideration. He may not be able to accept everything in the new Clause, but if he would consider some element of pressure upon the reluctant landlord to install these standard amenities and include provision to this end in the Bill, possibly when it reaches another place, he would deserve the thanks of the tenants and he would make this part of his Bill more effective.

Mr. Bevins: When one reflects on the mass of legislation for which my right hon. Friend has been responsible in recent times, it is not altogether surprising that the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has spent some happy hours in the company of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), as, I am sure, his hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) also has done. At least, it is gratifying on this occasion to know that once more the hon. and learned Member enjoys the support, at least in principle, of his hon. Friend the Member for Widnes.
It was rather unnecessary for the hon. and learned Gentleman to apologise for the drafting of the new Clause. I always find it difficult to understand drafting provisions of Bills and the like, but as a piece of drafting the Clause is excellent. I say that in no patronising sense to the hon. and learned Gentleman. In fact, so easy is the Clause to understand that I can summarise it in a few short sentences.
What the hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to do is to give tenants the right to compel landlords to apply for standard grants and he is doing it in this way. If the landlord fails to apply for a grant, one of two things may follow. Either the tenant can himself apply for a grant as though he were the landlord and in due course recover the balance of the cost of the improvement from the landlord, or, alternatively, the local authority, at the request of the tenant, might require the landlord to carry out the work. If the landlord fails to do so, the local authority could carry out the work itself. The local authority then, as in the case of the tenant, would have power to recover from the landlord the money which it had spent. In simple English, I understand that to be the meaning of the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal.
6.15 p.m.
This is an interesting proposal and one which deserves serious examination by the Committee. Indeed, any proposal aimed at providing houses with standard amenities is well worth considering. I hope that in the course of what I say, hon. Members opposite will not jump to the conclusion that my right hon. Friend is of necessity hostile to the principle underlying the new Clause.
I ask the Committee, however, to consider the matter in a severely practical fashion. A landlord can carry out an improvement only if he can raise the money to finance his share of the cost of the work, which normally would be one-half of the cost. As hon. Members, on both sides, know, many of the houses which we have in mind are small houses owned by what might be described as small people and the small landlord might not possess the capital to carry out the cost of the works. We have also to bear in mind that even if these landlords possess some capital, their means may be limited and they may not be able to carry out works of improvement to a block of, say, three, four or five houses in a row at the time that the tenants make their request to the landlord.
I agree that having said that, the Clause provides for the tenant or the local authority to carry out the work in default of the landlord. The fact is, however, that whoever carries out the work, at the end of the day it is the landlord who has to find the money for what, in effect, is his share of the cost of the standard improvement, because the tenant or the local authority, as the case may be, can recover their share of the cost from him.
I therefore ask myself whether it is likely that a tenant who, perhaps, knows that his landlord is impecunious would go ahead with the improvements in the knowledge that he would have difficulty in recovering the cost. Equally, is it likely that a local authority would go ahead with the improvement if it knew that the owner did not have the cash with which to make his contribution?
When I first studied the terms of the new Clause, I noticed that the hon. and learned Member used the word "may" in the case of recoveries by local authorities. It crossed my mind whether the hon. Member was seeking to give the

local authorities the option of recovering or not according to the circumstances of the landlord. The hon. and learned Member did not make that point in the course of his speech, but in any event I am advised that local authorities do not possess power to waive such payments. That is one broad consideration affecting the matter.

Mr. Mitchison: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. Has he, however, considered that this proposal is intended to go with the building societies part of the Bill? Surely, this is exactly the case where a person could, and should, get an advance from the building societies, promoted by the earlier part of the Bill.

Mr. Bevins: I do not think that the building societies would make advances for these old houses—the two-up and the two-down—in the class of case that we are discussing, that is to say, the small tenanted house let mainly at a controlled rent.
There is a second broad consideration. If landlords are to be compelled to improve their houses—and that is the meaning and significance of this new Clause—they should, in fairness, have the right to do so even where the tenant objects. If the landlord has no such right, certain tenants are in a position to prevent the improvement of the property. As hon. Members opposite will recall, it was at their specific request that this Bill was amended so that a standard grant cannot be given unless the tenant has given his consent—and I see that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering agrees.
He recently argued in Committee that the tenant should, in certain circumstances, be able to frustrate improvements as they might inconvenience himself or his family. Conversely, of course, improvements asked for by the tenant of the landlord might be no less inconvenient to the landlord from the point of view, perhaps, of timing, availability of cash, and so forth. Therefore, in equity, we should have to provide machinery to enable the landlord to appeal if a tenant withheld consent unreasonably. That machinery would also have to make provision for an appeal by the landlord if he could reasonably object to an improvement asked far by the tenant.
It is the considered view of my right hon. Friend that if some proposal such as this were at any time to be seriously contemplated, we should certainly have to consider improvising some appeals machinery for examining the position, and the possible objections of both landlord and tenant, if the thing were to be made at all workable. There is, of course, no such provision in the Clause as at present drafted.
I say quite plainly to the Committee that the intention of this proposal is laudable, but I must add that there are serious practical difficulties in trying to cover all cases by legislation of this kind. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) referred, as did the hon Member for Widnes to the peculiar and intimate interests that all tenants have in their homes.
It is perfectly right that references of that kind should be made. Tenants, everywhere, take an interest in the condition of their homes. Equally, landlords, as owners, have an interest in property which, after all, is legally theirs, and one can no more turn a blind eye to the landlord's interest than one can to the tenant's. Our present view is that, wherever possible, it is preferable to base arrangements of this sort between landlords and tenants on agreement.
The Bill makes it possible, for the first time, for the owners of properties to get grant for standard improvements as a matter of certainty, and it is the earnest hope—and I say this very sincerely—of my right hon. Friend and of hon. Members on this side of the Committee—and, I think, on the other side, too—that this new system of improvement grants will be used extensively by property owners throughout the country. For the present, we think it best to rely on the inducement of the grant.
There is no finality about this—or about anything in the world of politics. My right hon. Friend's intention is to see, from the common-sense point of view, how the new system develops, in what circumstances it is used, and so on. If, later, it should turn out that my right hon. Friend, or Her Majesty's Government, is dissatisfied with the progress being made, we should not hesitate to reexamine the matter afresh.
In short, we think that much of the motive behind the Amendment is good—and we are sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman's intentions are good—but we do not think that the Clause is workable as at present framed. However, my right hon. Friend will very closely watch the position as it develops in order to do what he considers to be right in the circumstances from time to time.

Mr. Willis: We cannot let the Parliamentary Secretary's reply pass without comment. This Clause applies also to Scotland. When I saw the Solicitor-General for Scotland sitting behind the Bar of the House I thought that it was he who was to explain it to us. Apparently, he 'has left the legal interpretation to the Joint Under-Secretary. However, at the moment, I am concerned with the arguments used by the Parliamentary Secretary.
In Scotland, we have a considerable amount of property of the kind I visualise as being covered by such a Clause as this. As the Joint Under-Secretary knows quite well—and so does the Secretary of State—when the 1954 Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act was passed, owners of property of this kind showed no great readiness to do much about it. They owned the houses, drew the rents, and did not bother to do much else.
That was the position, so much so that the Government had to offer a second bribe to get the job done. We still do not know with what success the Government's efforts have met, and whether or not the owners have responded more readily to two bribes than to one. It is quite conceivable that a number of landlords—house owners—will not want to do anything, but the hon. Gentleman has said that we must not do anything that seeks to compel them.
The hon. Gentleman said, "It is rather difficult. After all, we should think seriously about these poor landlords and about the inconvenience that we will cause them." We have spent the last four or five years thinking about the poor landlords, and trying to make them less poor and more able to provide people with decent accommodation. Now is not the time for thinking about the poor landlord who may be inconvenienced by being asked to do this.
I understand that a grant will be given only if the house has a life of fifteen years. The landlord having got the grant and put in the amenity, the rent can be increased. That is a type of business risk for which, perhaps, a bank overdraft would be available. If I were a landlord I would say to the bank, "I have not the money at present, but I should like to make these improvements because, when I have made them, I can increase my rents and in that way clear off the overdraft." I think that the average bank agent would be prepared to consider a reasonable business proposition like that. That covers the person who has not the money immediately to hand. As one argument has been that this grant improves the value of the property, I cannot see where the difficulty lies.
We have to remember, too, that all the time we are busily engaged in decontrolling houses. Every time a tenancy changes, the house becomes decontrolled, and, as far as I know, for rent increases the sky is the limit. In Edinburgh, where there is a shortage of houses, the rents can be increased enormously. No one says that they must not charge more, but the Under-Secretary says, "Let us be careful and tender and not touch these people." We have made it possible, in the event of decontrol, for them to increase the rents as much as they like, but we must not ask them to accept what, in the terms of the Bill, ought to be a good business risk. That is not a very good argument to advance in respect of this Clause.
6.30 p.m.
I hope that my hon. Friends will press this matter much further, because the hon. Gentleman's answer was very unsatisfactory. We cannot accept it. Of course, it may be difficult to do some of these things. The hon. Gentleman says, "We will see how it works." Have the Government any idea of what they will do in the event of it not working? Should they not be able to tell us now, "We will incorporate this Amendment in the Bill. This is an endeavour to get down what the Government want done." Hon. Members on this side of the Committee are trying to prod the Government to do something worth while and to place a little power in the hands of the tenant to improve his own conditions in the event of the landlord being recalcitrant.
Instead of the Government doing that, we are now being fobbed off with the hon. Gentleman's very feeble answer. I am quite sure that a great deal of this property, looked at as a pure business risk apart from the fact that it may be affected by decontrol, could be put in repair, because these are not very large jobs. It is not very expensive to put in a sink or something of that kind. Much of this work could be done at a fairly reasonable cost and I am sure that, in view of the fact that the property must be expected to last for fifteen years and that the owner can increase the rent, the banks or other people would be prepared to help. If they were not, what is wrong with the Government saying, "This is a good idea and we will try to arrange for assistance to be made available in other directions." Why should they not help the local authorities to assist?
This Clause makes provision for the local authorities to do these jobs. Why cannot the Government say to the local authorities that they can undertake this work? The Government are always telling us that they want to help the landlords, many of whom are queueing up for National Assistance each week because of the poverty in which they are now living. The Government wring our hearts over and over again by their descriptions of the conditions of the landlord. Why do not they say to the local authority which acts in accordance with this Clause that they will assist it to do this?
I am sure that if the Government had the will they could do this. This is placing a little hit of power in the hands of the tenant to get something done. If we had moved an Amendment with the object of putting a little more power in the hands of the landlord, we know what a different reply we would have received from the Government Front Bench. But this places a little power in the hands of the tenant to improve his own conditions. What a "shocking" thing it is for the Opposition to ask for this to be done.
I hope that my hon. Friends will reject the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary and that we shall have a word about this from the Secretary of State for Scotland. I see that he is in the Chamber. I am quite sure that he is briefed and ready to make a speech on


this important matter. If he is not prepared to do so, perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary will tell us something about this Clause as it applies to Scotland. What are the conditions in Scotland?
We know that the landlords did not respond to the Government's appeal in the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954. Did they respond any better to the provisions of the Rent Act, which gave them even a bigger increase? Cannot we have some information about that, so that we can judge whether the landlords are putting this property in a good state of repair? We ought to be told. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows something about this. He has had to consider it and he ought to have made up his mind independently of the English Minister. I have no doubt that he will tell us that he has made up his mind on the basis of knowledge supplied by the Scottish Office. Will he give us that information so that we shall be able to judge this matter for ourselves?
I hope that even at this late stage—although I fear that it is almost impossible—the Government will change their mind. At least, let us fight for what we are trying to get in this Clause and, if we cannot persuade the Government to have second thoughts about it, divide the Committee upon it.

Mr. Page: Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), I am disturbed by my hon. Friend's words on this Amendment, but in an entirely opposite sense. My hon. Friend said that my right hon. Friend accepted the principle of this Clause. But this Amendment alters a very major principle of the Bill. Under the Public Health Act and other similar statutes there can be compulsion placed on a landlord to remedy insanitary or dangerous conditions. This Amendment would place the same compulsion on the landlord in the case of what in this Bill are called amenities—the provision of a wash basin, bathroom, larder, and so on. The absence of those things are not insanitary conditions. If we are to accept them as such, let us debate the subject on other legislation, but they are certainly not designated as such in this Bill.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) is not in his place. He talked

again and again of this imaginary figure the reluctant landlord. Why does he think that some of these landlords are reluctant? Is it not possible that they have not the money to do these repairs? All landlords are not the Prudential. Many landlords are people of small means. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East sarcastically talked of the way in which hon. Members on this side of the Committee spoke again and again of the small means landlord. Indeed, there are many of such landlords.
By this Amendment, the tenant can force such a landlord to carry out the installation of the standard amenities. The hon. Gentleman says that the landlord can go to the building society. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East said that the landlord can go to the bank and borrow the money. Supposing that these houses are already mortgaged up to the hilt, as many of them are. Is the landlord to borrow more money and put himself further in debt? The absence of amenities does not amount to insanitary conditions. It is true that many of these houses have not the amenities, but they are not for that reason dangerous or insanitary. Until the Committee decides that there is some danger about not having a bath or a wash basin, then the landlord should not be compelled in this way to spend money to put them in. money which, in many cases, he has not got.
Perhaps hon. Members might consider the expense that is incurred in providing these things. To put a bathroom or wash basin into a house which is not joined up to the main water supply or to the main sewerage may cost many hundreds of pounds. The landlord gets one-half of that from the local authority by way of a grant up to £400. The remainder may be an extremely substantial sum to force an owner of property, who may be receiving only a controlled rent, to pay.
The whole scheme in the Amendment is unreal and fantastic. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not accept even the principle of it without the House of Commons discussing it on some other and entirely different legislation.

Mr. Ede: I have often admired the calm and dignified manner in which the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) approaches most problems,


and it is really delightful to find this evening that there is one thing which can rouse him to passionate expression and great moral indignation. I sympathise with the Parliamentary Secretary. After all, he did not do very much to cause the last few indignant sentences which fell from the mouth of the hon. Member for Crosby. All he said was that he hoped that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) would realise that the Minister was not, in principle, hostile to the Amendment. That was all he said, but, at the end of his speech, the Amendment and the new Clause were as dead as if his right hon. Friend had the most murderous intentions towards it.
The speech of the hon. Member for Crosby illustrates the way in which, on this issue of the diverse interests of landlord and tenant, the basic difference between the two parties in the House is demonstrated.

Mr. Lindgren: The landlord's pals opposite.

Mr. Ede: We were asked by the Parliamentary Secretary to reflect upon much legislation passed in recent years and promoted by the Minister of Housing and Local Government which has had a great deal to do with making tenants uncomfortable. I am bound to say, as a tenant, that I have been made very uncomfortable by the right hon. Gentleman's legislation. I have never found much sympathy on the other side of the House, although I never sought it—I do not believe in looking for something which I know is not there—when the affairs of tenants were being discussed. When I think of the multiple which has been applied to my rent under the right hon. Gentleman's legislation, I feel that I ought to have a little sympathy from people other than myself.
Here is something to provide for what the hon. Member for Crosby apparently regards as an inessential amenity.

Mr. Page: No, I did not say that. I called it an amenity in accordance with the Bill. I never used the word "inessential".

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman said that it does not matter about these things.

Mr. Page: No, I did not say that.

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman implied it.

Mr. Ede: I am not concerned with what the hon. Gentleman implied. It was what he was explicit about which concerns me.

Mr. Page: The right hon. Gentleman should be accurate in these things. I said that the absence of the amenities was not dangerous and the absence of the amenities was not insanitary. I did not use the word "inessential" and I did not say that they did not matter.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for Crosby, of course, thinks that there must be some minimum standard so that one can just keep oneself alive and healthy in the accommodation provided by the landlord, and, if those requirements are satisfied, anything beyond that is an amenity, the word probably being in inverted commas. It reminds me of the farmer who was asked at a country election, "Do you believe in minimum wages?", to which he replied, "I always pay them."
6.45 p.m.
What an amazing thing it is to have the word "standard" in front of the word "amenities". Most of the amenities which I enjoy in life are things which are not standardised at all; they are the things which appeal to one as making life comfortable and better than it otherwise would be. To suggest that it is outrageous that a person who is deprived of these standard amenities should have an opportunity, through my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, to take steps to secure them is, to my mind, quite indefensible in this day of the twentieth century.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will divide the Committee on this Amendment. I hope that it will be understood that—because we do not believe that people should be unable to obtain the standard amenities which are included within the terms of the Bill—we regard the Amendment and the new Clause as essential. In conclusion, I should like to say that I hope that before we finish with the Bill the right hon. Gentleman will be able to feel that it is necessary not merely not to be hostile, but that, on a matter like this, he should at last show some enthusiasm for a good cause.

Mr. Michael Cliffe: I was rather surprised by the


latter part of what the Parliamentary Secretary said concerning this Amendment, which was dealt with so ably by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). The hon. Gentleman applauded my hon. and learned Friend for the excellent job he had done and then gave a thousand reasons why he could not, of course, agree to it. It is most deplorable that Ministers should try to give reasons for rejecting what is plainly a reasonable Amendment to provide something for the very people for whom, as the Minister himself has said, the Bill is designed, namely, the tenants. The Government are pleading poverty on the part of the landlords.
It is a mistake today to take into account the suggestion that owners of property could not perform their proper obligations and provide for what we regard as essential needs. I say that quite objectively because property today is not merely a capital asset as we generally understand it. Many of us know that properties which only a few years ago, could attract £300 or £400, the type of property to which attention is particularly directed under the Bill, are fetching three, four or five times that amount because of the present extreme scarcity. If there are such landlords, they ought to dispose of what is a capital asset, when they can obtain a good profit at the present time, in order to enable us to carry out what we consider, and what I hope hon. Members opposite consider, are essential improvements for the tenants.
It is generally agreed that the things which are referred to as bribes—the improvement grants under the Housing Repairs and Rents Act and the Rent Act, 1957—have not done what was envisaged would be done as a result of those bribes. The landlords implemented only that part of the legislation which gave them the right to increase rents. They did not carry out the necessary repairs because they felt that they were doing very well in any case, and did not carry out their commitments because they were not legally compelled to do so. If we are concerned about this type of property we should pass the Amendment because it concerns something which should supersede anything concerned in the previous three Amendments.
I hope that hon. Members opposite will support the Amendment. If they are not prepared to do that, I agree with my hon. Friends that we should divide on it.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I did not intend to speak until I heard the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary in rejecting the Amendment, and that of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) who lost control of himself and let the cat out of the bag. The argument appears to be that we should not put teeth into the Bill because it may be that the owner of a property is very hard up. That is the kind of argument which was always used against any improvement in the social conditions for the last 100 years. It used to be the poor widow and her mite. Now it is the hard-up landlord who cannot afford to do it.
If it is true that there is a large number of landlords who cannot afford to do the repairs which the Bill regards as minimum improvements, the only conclusion to which one can come is that the Bill will be as much of a mouldy stick or carrot as the Prime Minister's Bill of a year or two ago, which did practically nothing to improve the internal conditions of these houses.
I can take the Parliamentary Secretary to rows of the kind of house with which the Bill is presumably intended to deal which are owned not by small people without any income but by large London property companies. Not one of these houses has had any improvement done to it under the Prime Minister's mouldy carrot Bill.

Mr. Lindgren: Mouldy turnip.

Mr. Gibson: Whether turnip or carrot, if it is mouldy it is nasty.
If that is so, how can hon. Members expect that landlords are likely to take advantage of the very much smaller grant which the Bill gives to make these improvements when they know that they are doing all right as it is in getting their 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 per cent.? The Committee should not pass the Bill without incorporating the proposed Clause, or something very like it, which will help a tenant who has not satisfactory facilities for storing food. I do not know whether hon. Members have ever been in any of these houses, but some of them in the back streets of my constituency simply have not any facilities for storing


food. Very often, food is found in an old box with a perforated door in the back yard. They certainly have not hot water, and to put in a bathroom is almost impossible because one of the other rooms would have to be used for the purpose. Yet all of these houses are occupied, all are suffering from bad decay, and we cannot get any real improvements in the conditions under which tenants live.
If it is to be left to the good will of the owners, even this carrot or turnip is not big enough to attract them. It is therefore essential that, if we mean what we say about the Bill, a Clause such as is proposed should be put in the Bill to put some teeth into it and in order to give the tenant some opportunity of compelling the owner to provide satisfactory facilities for storing food, and a water closet contiguous with, close to or inside the house. The very fact that we are even discussing this matter seems to me to be a slight on our modern civilisation.
There are hundreds of thousands of these houses in the country, and there are tens of thousands of them in the London area. I am amazed that the Parliamentary Secretary should say that, while he has a great deal of sympathy with the principle of the proposed new Clause, because there may be some small owners who would have difficulty in finding the necessary capital to make these improvements we should turn down the proposal.
I am coming to the conclusion that the real object of the Government is to help the big owners if possible and that they are not concerned with the welfare, interest and happiness of the tenants and families who live in them. I hope that the Committee will insert the proposed new Clause in the Bill so that it will have a few teeth which will make it work effectively.

Mr. Ross: It is a great pity that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) spoiled what was up to that time a very objective and serious discussion on a matter of considerable importance by parading, I thought quite unnecessarily, his political prejudices. We are, after all, discussing what was admitted by the Parliamentary Secretary to be a serious effort to remedy what is undoubtedly a weakness in the Bill.
In considering the houses which we
should like to see improved in Scotland,

I do not think that anyone can come to any other conclusion but that we must have some such provision as is suggested in the proposed new Clause if anything at all is to be done. It is absolutely historic in relation to these houses in Scotland. The Government tried to exhort the landlords. They sought to induce and sweeten them with powers to enable them to increase rents. They were offered improvement grants if they would improve the houses. What is the story? The landlords have not sought to use any of that legislation open to them to improve the houses of Scotland. The Joint Under-Secretary knows quite well that in general the only people who have taken advantage of the 1949 Act where it was available to them are owner-occupiers. The great lack concerns the houses which we deal with in the Amendment.
We are merely asking the Government to do what they say is their aim—to get the maximum number of houses improved through the provision of standard amenities. All we suggest is that the tenant should be given the right to send a notice to his landlord to the effect that he wants an improvement carried out, and, failing that, himself to make application to the local authority and then to carry on and do the job.
If that goes through, the house will be improved. Surely, that is what everyone wants. If this is the only way to get the great majority of the houses that can be so dealt with in Scotland improved, why do the Government hesitate? Why does the hon. Member for Crosby fly into a passion and declare and proclaim his political servitude as the lackey of the landlord and the puppet of property?
I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will prove the Scotsman wrong and that this will be one issue in which lie will not be a yes-man and in which he will say to the Prime Minister, I disagree with you, Mr. Prime Minister. If we are to have housing improvements in tenant occupancy in Scotland we must have this Amendment." if the Prime Minister continues to be stubborn, I hope that the Secretary of State will offer his resignation. I hope that the Secretary of State appreciates how the people of Scotland are feeling about the Scottish team of Ministers. If he read the Scotsman of a fortnight ago he will appreciate that


here is his way to answer the challenge. He can answer it by accepting the Amendment, to the great benefit of the people of Scotland.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, That The CHAIRMAN do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. H. Brooke],—put and agreed to.

Committee Report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND (HON. MEMBER FOR WEDNESBURY)

7.3 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the failure of Her Majesty's Government to protest to the Federal Government of Rhodesia and Nyasaland at their action in designating the honourable Member for Wednesbury a prohibited immigrant; and declares that the entry of a citizen of the United Kingdom into a British Protectorate should not be subject to the veto of the Federal Government of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
The Motion clearly falls into two parts. First of all, we regret that the Government did not do what we believe was their duty, namely, protest at the serving on my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) of the order that he should leave the Federation Territories. To get the matter into perspective, I should like to say that initially my hon. Friend was informed on Saturday that he must leave Northern Rhodesia forthwith. When this information reached me on Saturday afternoon, I telephoned to the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies who was at once good enough to take the matter up. He telephoned back to me at ten o'clock on Saturday night to say that my hon. Friend would be allowed to remain in Northern Rhodesia until his tour had been completed but that he would not have permission to go on to Nyasaland.
At that time, there was no declaration of emergency in Nyasaland and there was not, and there is not today, a declaration of emergency in Northern Rhodesia. Why my hon. Friend was asked to leave we are not certain, except that in the Daily Telegraph today five main reasons are given. It is said that

The fact that no textual reference is made to Mr. Stonehouse's statement is probably due to their appearing rather innocuous to the British public out of their context".
That is the first reason given.
I have not seen a complete report of what my hon. Friend said. I can only go on the newspaper reports of what he said. I am bound to say from the pieces that have appeared here, whether in context or out of context, that all of it seems innocuous. Indeed, the way in which the account of his speech was 'written up in the Rhodesia Herald called forth a protest from a reputable and well-known journalist in the Federation. Mr. Clyde Sanger. I do not know whether he still is, but he certainly was, on the editorial staff of the Central African Examiner, the other half of the Economist.
He felt obliged to write to the editor of the Rhodesia Herald in these terms:
To suggest that Mr. Stonehouse's behaviour at Highfield was that of a 'pedlar of mischief' who spoke 'fiery words' to 'inflame his listeners' is nonsense—and dangerous nonsense …".
He goes on to reproduce at some length what he took down of what my hon. Friend said.
He says:
The burden of Mr. Stonehouse's speech was that the British Labour Party had won for the working man his rights after a century's struggle, and was therefore concerned that other peoples should also win their rights to human standards of living …
I leave out some other adulatory references to the programme of our party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am quite ready to read them if hon. Members opposite wish. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read them."]I will read them.
Mr. Sanger goes on to say that my hon. Friend said that:
the next Labour Government was pledged to put £160 million towards fighting ignorance and poverty in the colonies every year, but Congress and other Nationalist organisations would forfeit the sympathy of the Labour Party if they used violence—and over and over again with considerable courage he condemned the use of violence.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Cheer that."] I am not surprised if it sounds innocuous.
Then my hon. Friend went on, and this is a direct quotation from a journalist present:
So you must work for your rights in peace and then you will be much more likely


to have the rest of the world behind you. Your slogan should be: 'Work hard, educate yourselves, and organise'. Use the right way, and you will win. If you use the wrong way you will be giving the most powerful weapons to those people who do not want to achieve the same things as you do. I ask you to have pride in your country. Hold your heads high and behave as though the country belonged to you.
This is the context of the quotation.
He went on:
If you behave in a way that you are ashamed of, you cannot be surprised if people who are now your friends do not become ashamed of you.
This is a speech that was made by my hon. Friend and which is the first reason for issuing a deportation order against him. Is there any hon. Member on either side of the House who would say that this was peddling mischief, speaking fiery words, or inflaming his listeners?
Mr. Sanger goes on to give other quotations, but I can assure the House that this is a fair reproduction of the burden of my hon. Friend's speech. What effect it had, apart from that on the Rhodesia Herald, is shown by the African Daily News. I take this from the Central African Examiner:
… the impression left with Africans was very different.
That is to say, he was not trying to make trouble and lasting harm. The quotation continues:
A correspondent to the African Daily News wrote: Mr. Stonehouse did not turn out to be the racially-feeling rouser many expected him to be… Whenever one thought he would go out of his course and denounce the European in order to give his hearers what they wanted, his obvious political acumen acted as a welcome guide'.
That was the effect on an African correspondent who heard the speech, and when one reads what was said, and then considers that a deportation order was issued against my hon. Friend on that basis, one wonders whether the discretion enjoined upon my hon. Friend's speeches should not also be enjoined upon the Federal Government's actions.
The other things said by the Daily Telegraph are these:
The fact that no textual reference is made to Mr. Stonehouse's statements is probably due to their appearing rather innocuous to the British public out of their context … The authorities consider such a statement "—
that is, "Hold your heads high, this country belongs to you"—

… to a crowd of thousands at a meeting organised by the African National Congress and attended by its leaders, as most dangerous.
Honestly I do not see how anybody reading the whole of that speech could get that impression from it. The Daily Telegraph went on to say that the authorities—
… complain that he flouted regulations well known to him … by going into houses in the African quarters at Highfield … without going through the formality of advising the authorities.
I have referred to the fact that the African Members of the Federal House unfortunately have to live in a separate reservation in this society, which is a multi-racial society, and if my hon. Friend wishes to see an African Member of Parliament he must, if he wishes to visit him at home, go into an African reservation known as Highfield, which a number of us here have been to see.
The next point made by the Daily Telegraph is that he:
… deliberately created an incident by taking two Congress leaders with him into Meikle's Hotel in Salisbury, where the colour bar is at its sharpest, while he could easily have taken them into another first-class hotel …
The final point made is that:
It was also taken amiss that at the mass African meeting which Mr. Stonehouse addressed, his interpreters were Mr. Nyandoro, Congress Secretary-General, and Mr. Chickereme, Acting President. Such men, it is felt, can be relied on to make his statements as inflammatory as possible.
There is nothing nearly as inflammatory in my hon. Friend's statements as there is in the action taken by the Federal Government in these circumstances.
I am sure the Government must realise —they know this—that it is precisely because of the fact that there is a colour bar in Salisbury that people cannot go into an hotel, and it is precisely the fact that the African Federal Members of Parliament have to live in a separate reservation which causes the fear in Nyasaland that this kind of behaviour will be common there. It does not exist in Nyasaland at the moment. I am sure that this is the reason for much of the trouble lying behind the Nyasaland dispute at the present time.
I fully agree that discretion is needed in the present tense situation that is building up in the Federation. But, if I may say so, discretion is needed on both


sides. I say to the Government that when they knew what was happening out there —and they knew by means of a private telephone conversation from me to the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies —they should have taken the Federal authorities quietly on one side and told them of the consequences of what they were doing, instead of compromising with evil, if I may so put it, by getting a compromise that if my hon. Friend was allowed to finish his tour in Northern Rhodesia, the Government would not mind if he was not allowed to go to Nyasaland.
It is no use trying to make that kind of compromise in these circumstances. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) will make the legal case and other parts of the case when he winds up the discussion tonight. I am no lawyer but I simply cannot believe that the House intended to draft a piece of legislation which would make it impossible for British citizens—whether they are miners or postmen earning their living, whether they are Members of Parliament or Ministers of the Crown—to be allowed into the Federal Territories only at the discretion of the Federal authorities. If that is the legal position, and the Attorney-General advises that it is such, I say to the Government that they must take up this matter at the earliest possible opportunity in order to get it put right.
It would be an intolerable situation, for example, considering the troubles there have been, if some Members of Parliament, or indeed Ministers who might be appointed by a future Government, who were not persona grata with the Federal authorities, had to have their admissibility into the Federation determined in territories that are British Protectorates. I have read the statement which sets out clearly a complicated position, and I am grateful to the Commonwealth Relations Office for putting it out. I say that, whatever the legal consequences may be, I am sure the House will feel that there is something here which must be put right.
Our major consideration in all this is the future. This situation about immigration has been building up. I have looked up today a number of cases in which the Federal authorities have

refused admission to British journalists, writers or other people during the last two years. This is the first time it has happened to a Member of Parliament who has gone there basically for a body called Christian Action, which has financed his venture in order that he should prepare for them, as far as he can, an account of the state of opinion in the territories, and bring it back. I believe that to be a perfectly legitimate operation for a Member of this House to undertake.
As I say, what we are mainly concerned with here is the future. We have had discussions about this today because —and I know hon. Gentlemen opposite will believe this—there is no one here who wants to see the situation in Nyasaland deteriorate and degenerate into violence and bloodshed. I say now what I omitted to say last night, because the debate was arranged very hurriedly. I say to all my African friends with all the force I can command, "Do not resort to violence. Use constitutional means as far and as long as you can." Of course, if people are imprisoned, if the leaders are imprisoned, it is difficult to use constitutional means.
This is where I want to make a proposition to the Government. I have been authorised to say the following to the Government tonight, and I put it to them with all seriousness and with the hope that it can be accepted. We on this side of the House would be prepared to co-operate with the Government in the appointment of a Parliamentary mission to go to Nyasaland at the earliest possible date, the sooner the better, in order to investigate the background to the present disturbances. We believe that this would give the people of Nyasaland the reassurance they so urgently desire that they are still under the protection of the British Parliament. Such a mission would naturally report back to this House at the earliest possible moment.
I do not ask that this particular form of words should be accepted, but I wish to make this offer to the Government now. If they will accept the spirit of what I am saying and the sincerity which underlies it on this side of the House, then we would hope that it would lessen tension in the Federation by our not voting tonight. We would not divide the House if such an offer were taken up, in the hope that by showing to


the people of Nyasaland that the British Parliament was going to investigate the background to these disturbances, they would feel that there was a hope that their case could be put and their views known, and that the British Parliament would endeavour to see that justice was done.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: I beg to second the Motion.

7.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): As the Leader of the House made clear on Monday, the fact that any Member is declared a prohibited immigrant to a British overseas territory must cause anxiety to all of us, particularly where Parliament retains certain direct responsibilities which the House can discharge wisely and responsibly only if, at any rate, some of its Members have a proper first-hand understanding of the conditions in those Territories.
Before I deal with the serious charge against the Government which is contained in the Motion, it might he helpful if I tried to outline the facts relative to the visit of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) to East and Central Africa, so far as they are known to me.
I think that the House as a whole will regret the fact that the hon. Member is unable to be present here today. It was suggested earlier today, when you, Mr. Speaker, were considering a question of Privilege, that the hon. Member was prevented, by the action of the Federal Government, from reaching London in time to attend this debate.
When the commercial flight to Blantyre, leaving Lusaka Airport at seven o'clock yesterday morning, was cancelled, on account of the state of emergency, Central African Airways offered to provide an Apache aircraft to take him to Salisbury to catch the connection from Johannesburg to London which passes through Salisbury. In addition, the Government of Northern Rhodesia offered him two motor cars, one of them a spare in case the one he was travelling in broke down, to drive him to Salisbury.
By accepting either of those offers, the hon. Member for Wednesbury could, subject to the inevitable vagaries of air transport, have reached London in time for this debate. He apparently chose,

however, to leave Northern Rhodesia for Dar-es-Salaam rather than return to Salisbury so as to be available here this evening.
A week before leaving the United Kingdom, the hon. Member rang up my private secretary and asked whether would assist him to obtain official hospitality in the Federation and to meet leading personalities, including the Prime Minister, Sir Roy Welensky. I am, as I hope at least some hon. Members know, only too anxious to assist them to get first-hand knowledge of the countries in relation to which the Commonwealth Relations Office has special responsibilities, but, of course, I cannot order our representatives abroad to provide hospitality.
However, I think that all Members will agree that our representatives are extremely generous in the help which they afford to individual Members whenever they may happen to be present in the part of the territory with which they are concerned. On this occasion, I cabled the High Commissioner asking him to help the hon. Member to obtain the interviews he wanted and I advised the hon. Member to call on the High Commissioner as soon as he arrived in Salisbury.
I understood at that time that he was on a fact-finding tour, but I was not aware until tonight, that it was in any way connected with Christian Action, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said. Certainly, the hon. Member did not inform me that he was also a representative of a newspaper, or that he intended to address political meetings in Southern Rhodesia organised by the African Congress.
It was only at a later stage that my attention was drawn to an announcement in Reynolds News of 15th February, which ran:
John Stonehouse Investigates.
John Stonehouse, M.P. flew to Nairobi yesterday to make an on-the-spot investigation for Reynolds News. His reports on conditions in Africa will be exclusive to Reynolds News.

Hon. Members: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Alport: There is nothing wrong in that.
I am informed by Sir Eldred Hitchcock, who, as some hon. Members know, was at one time President of the East African


Sisal Growers' Association, whose headquarters is at Dar-es-Salaam, that he answered an advertisement in the "agony" column of The Times on 8th January which read as follows:
Kenya, Tanganyika, Rhodesia—Director of independent economic and commercial research organisation making extensive tour February invites discussion of further assignments.
As a result of a reply, he received a letter signed "John Stonehouse, M.P." which outlined his wide range of business interests and invited him, that is, Sir Eldred, if he wished to make use of his services, to reply to the House of Commons.
No fair-minded person would criticise the hon. Member for undertaking a tour which combined an interesting journalistic assignment with some private enterprise, but I think that the House—

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: They all do it.

Mr. Alport: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue my argument, he will see the point.
I think that the House will consider that it somewhat detracts from the impression given by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen earlier this week that the hon. Member for Wednesbury was in the Federation in pursuance of his duties as a Member of this House. I feel certain that all hon. Members will agree that it does not justify the hon. Member writing in Reynolds News, on 1st March:
I am continuing my tour—which I emphasise is officially arranged—until I receive advice from London.
Anyone reading that would have assumed, whether the hon. Member intended it or not, that his tour was officially sponsored.
It seems to me that this has a serious implication for us all. If the Commonwealth Relations Office, the Colonial Office, or the Foreign Office, by arranging for the normal courtesies and facilities for hon. Members travelling abroad, are to find themselves portrayed as giving official sponsorship for the Member's visit and thereby, by implication, for his activities, I can only say that it will obviously make it more difficult for Departments and representatives to give their assistance in future.
It is unnecessary for me to emphasise the acute embarrassment which situations like this can create for Governors of Territories and High Commissioners. The hon. Member for Wednesbury mentioned an invitation from the Governor of Nyasaland, both in his telegram to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and in his Press statement at Dar-es-Salaam. The Colonial Secretary, in the same way as myself, tried to give the hon. Member all the help that he could, but an invitation from a Governor does not give an official standing to a visit by any Member of Parliament. It is merely an informal courtesy which is extended to Members of Parliament on many occasions and in many parts of the world.
All I can say is that I would have thought that as the hon. Member has had this close contact with official representatives overseas, it would have been wise and proper for him to seek and to take the advice which those representatives gave him.
When the hon. Member reached Salisbury, the High Commissioner was able to tell him that as a result of a personal approach which he, the High Commissioner, had made to Sir Roy Welensky, an interview had been arranged. On learning that the hon. Member proposed to address a meeting of the African National Congress, at Harare, near Salisbury, the High Commissioner attempted to dissuade him on the ground that in the existing situation of Southern Rhodesia it would be a most imprudent thing to do. The hon. Member said, however, that he had come at the invitation of Congress and could not cancel his engagement to speak.
What the hon. Member said in his two-hour speech at the meeting at Harare is not really relevant, because, although some of his statements offended leading members of the Opposition in the Federation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which Opposition?"—the Opposition in the Federation—the Dominion Party and others—it does not follow that the Government of the Federation necessarily take their cue from the Opposition, any more than we do in this country. In fact, the Prime Minister of the Federation has made it clear that whatever may have been the grounds for deciding to declare the hon. Member a prohibited immigrant it was not necessarily the content of his speech.
The Prime Minister has made a full statement, which has been published, and which hon. Members can see, for I shall be pleased to give it to them at any time. It is significant that, within a matter of hours of the hon. Member making this speech to the African Congress, this organisation was declared an illegal organisation in Southern Rhodesia. Although I do not suggest for a moment that there was any connection between the two events it shows the extreme imprudence of the hon. Member on that occasion.
The House will be aware—as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East has made clear—that during the hon. Member's stay in Southern Rhodesia there appeared to be occasions when, either deliberately or through ignorance, he appeared to ignore the authorities. It was not, however, until he reached Northern Rhodesia that he was interviewed by the Federal Chief Immigration Officer and asked to leave the Federation at short notice. The Chief Immigration Officer disclosed to him that he had powers to enforce his departure as a result of an order issued by the Federal Legislature, passed under powers granted by this Parliament in the Constitution of the Federation.
I gave the Government's view of the relative legal positions of the Federation and the United Kingdom in this matter earlier this week. As the hon. Member has kindly said, the position has been set out very clearly in the Paper circulated for the benefit of the House earlier today. Any other legal points will be dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General later. As soon as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House learnt that the hon. Member for Wednesbury had been or was to be declared a prohibited immigrant, my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations instructed the High Commissioner to the Federation to make inquiries. As a result of this, we were informed that the hon. Member was to be allowed to complete his tour of Northern Rhodesia.
Here, I may say straight away that this was before the approach made by the hon. Member, as I understand it, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies—although, as I said on Monday, in existing circumstances the visit to Nyasaland was not a practice-

ability. The reason for this was that in the highly inflammable situation developing in that territory it would have been most inadvisable to add to the preoccupations of the security forces the further duty of providing for the protection of an individual who had already shown himself to be unwilling to accept the prudent advice given to him by those in close touch with the situation.
As a result of a telegram sent by the hon. Member to the Leader of the House and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Governor of Northern Rhodesia conveyed to him a message from the Colonial Secretary in which he said:
I very much hope you will decide to return here and not attempt to visit Nyasaland. This will not, of course, in any way prejudice any rights you may feel you have to raise the matter on your return.
The Governor did his utmost to persuade him to accept what he, the Governor, knew to be the legal and constitutional position of the Federation by leaving immediately he had completed his Northern Rhodesian visit. Further, he offered the hon. Member the services of the Attorney-General to advise him on the legal position.
The hon. Member likewise sent a message to the Leader of the Opposition on 28th February. As a result of this it is reasonable to suppose that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, or somebody acting on his behalf, gave the hon. Member for Wednesbury some advice as to the way in which he should conduct himself. I think that the House is entitled to know what this advice was.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I do not know why the Under-Secretary of State should be so pompous about it. The facts are very well known. We told him that we thought he should come back in time for the debate.

Mr. Alport: The hon. Member apparently took no more notice of the advice given him by the Leader of his party than he did of the other advice he received. I should like to know whether, in the advice that the right hon. Gentleman gave him, lie told him to ignore the advice of the Governor of Northern Rhodesia and the advice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and whether he gave him any advice with


regard to his attitude to the authority of the Federation acting in accordance with powers devolved on them by this Parliament.
If they gave no advice in these circumstances it seems to me that the responsibilities of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Front Bench opposite are very serious in this matter. Their lack of advice has enabled a position to arise in which the Opposition have placed themselves behind the actions of a private individual visiting the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland, and in those circumstances there is no doubt that this situation results very largely from the lack of leadership of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
As soon as my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations had been informed of the incidents which took place at Lusaka Airport yesterday he instructed the High Commissioner to make further inquiries of the Federal Government. I submit to the House that until full information was available it would not have been in accordance with practice to lodge a protest with the Federal authorities, particularly in view of the legal position with regard to the respective rights and powers of the Parliaments of the Federation and the United Kingdom.
I would say, before I conclude, that the Government have clearly recognised, right from the start, that whatever view may be taken of the activities of the hon. Member an important issue is involved concerning the capacity of this Parliament, and the Government in the United Kingdom, to fulfil their responsibilities to the two. Protectorates of Northern Rhodesia
and Nyasaland. It is obviously essential that we should be assured that there was no intention of the Federal Government, under the powers which they possess under the Constitution, to exclude from the Federation any person travelling to or travelling in the Federation on official business, with the authority of or in the service of the Parliament of the United Kingdom or of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.
On the instructions of my noble Friend, the High Commissioner in Salisbury today asked the Prime Minister of the Federation to give an assurance in these specific terms. As we fully ex-

petted, I learnt from the High Commissioner an hour or so ago that the Federal Prime Minister has gladly given the assurance for which we asked.
I suggest to the House that the right course now is to await the return of the hon. Member for Wednesbury and to hear his point of view. In the meantime, I hope that the House will reject the Motion and, by so doing, ensure that the terms of censure which it contains are placed firmly on the shoulders of the occupants of the Front Bench opposite who, by their lack of leadership and discretion, have done so much to create the unfortunate situation which now exists.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but in the course of his inadequate and foolish speech the Under-Secretary of State made no reference at all to the very serious and constructive suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) at the end of his speech, namely, that a Parliamentary commission should be sent out as soon as possible to Nyasaland to investigate the background of the present disturbances, a suggestion which was made in the hope that it will assuage the situation there and be for the benefit of the peoples of Central Africa and the future of the Commonwealth. Furthermore, my hon. Friend has indicated that should Her Majesty's Government be willing tonight to accept this proposal in principle, we shall not divide the House.
This is a serious proposal, and I am surprised that not one word was said about it by the hon. Member. Nevertheless, I would ask that other more senior members of the Government—the Leader of the House and the Colonial Secretary—will give very serious consideration to the proposal before the debate is wound up and that the Attorney-General, who I understand is to reply, will give us the Government's opinion.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I shall refer in a moment to the speech of the Under-Secretary, but I would first say a word in support of the suggestion which has come from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).
There is an almost exact precedent for the course which is now proposed. In 1948 there were very serious disturbances in the Gold Coast. On that occasion, a state of emergency was proclaimed. On that occasion, also, very serious allegations were made in terms extremely similar to those which we heard from the Front Bench yesterday. There was the allegation that political leaders had been engaged in a conspiracy for widespread assassination. On that occasion, a commission was sent out—the Watson Commission. The political leaders who had been arrested under the emergency powers—they included the present Prime Minister—had the opportunity of appearing and being represented before the Commission.
The remarkable thing was that on that occasion the colonial Government did not adduce one single shred of evidence in support of their allegations that assassination was being planned on a great scale or, indeed, on any scale. It would be worth while knowing whether history is likely to repeat itself. That Commission represented an extremely important landmark in the history of the Gold Coast. The constitutional progress of the Gold Coast into the independent State of Ghana stemmed largely from the Watson inquiry. Therefore, I suggest that we ought to follow that precedent on this occasion.
I want to say a few words about the speech that we have heard, a speech entirely unworthy of the occasion. Scarcely at any point did the hon. Gentleman address himself to the terms of the Motion or to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East. Instead of that, he made an entirely uncalled for attack upon my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), an attack which I think I may say was received with anger and resentment by every hon. Member on this side of the House.
It is said against him that my hon. Friend went there to represent, among other things, Christian Action. Is there any conceivable reason why he should not? It was said that while he was there he was engaged to write articles for a newspaper which has always taken a great interest in African affairs. That has happened over and over again when hon. Members have visited foreign and colonial

territories. It has never before been questioned. It is said that my hon. Friend was combining some business assignment with his fact-finding mission as a Member of Parliament. That is something which has happened over and over again to hon. Members in all parts of the House. Indeed, there are many of us who would not be able to make such journeys if we were not able to combine visits as Members of Parliament with professional or business assignments. There was no foundation whatever for the criticism which was made.

Mr. Alport: The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) has missed the point, as he seems to have missed so many points in this debate so far. As the hon. and learned Gentleman will see when he reads HANSARD tomorrow, the point that I was making was that when an hon. Member goes abroad in these circumstances he does not go abroad on an official visit.

Mr. Foot: I am not concerned with whether my hon. Friend was on an official visit. The phrase may not have been well chosen. The hon. Gentleman said in his speech that my hon. Friend had been engaged in these other assignments at the same time as he was carrying out his duties as a Member of Parliament. That is something which has happened over and over again, and it is something which will no doubt happen many times in the future, and it is not a ground of criticism at all.
I want to come to the matters with which the hon. Gentleman very carefully did not deal, and those are the main issues which are raised by the Motion. In this debate, we are not really concerned with the question whether the Federal Government acted within their legal powers. We are not concerned on this occasion, though we may be on some other, with the more technical issue whether there was here a breach of Privilege.
What we are concerned about, and what the hon. Gentleman entirely fails to realise, is the far wider and more important question of the rights of this House and the rights of hon. Members of this House in relation to colonial and dependant territories. In recent weeks, there has been a good deal of argument, in Bournemouth and elsewhere, about the


proper functions of Members of Parliament. I should think that there would be agreement in all parts of the House that we do not sit here as delegates or merely as the representatives of our own constituencies. The functions of Members of Parliament
were laid down by Chief Justice Coke over 300 years ago when he said:
And it is to be observed, though one be chosen for one particular county or borough, yet when he is returned and sits in Parliament he serveth for the whole realm.
The same doctrine was expressed a century later by Blackstone, when he said:
Every Member, though chosen by one particular district, when elected and returned, serves for the whole realm. For the end of his coming hither is not particular, but general; not barely to advantage his constituents, but the common wealth.
These definitions of the functions of Members of Parliament are just as valid today as they were three centuries ago, but there is this difference—that nowadays the realm for which we all have a responsibility to serve includes not merely this island but all the territories for which we have legislative responsibility, and for the administration of which Ministers are supposed, however inadequately, to answer.
I think that this debate will serve a very useful purpose if it emphasises what Ministers very often tend to forget, and that is that the responsibility for all that goes on in these territories is ours. It belongs to this House of Commons, and that needs to be a good deal more fully realised than it is. How often does it happen at Question Time, when we on this side of the House seek to raise some question involving personal freedom or human rights in a Colonial Territory, for example, imprisonment in Kenya for many years without trial, or deportation without any judicial process, that we are told that this is a matter simply for the authorities on the spot and that the Colonial Secretary or the Under-Secretary will not intervene? They are entitled to have regard to the advice they receive, but when, in effect, as they so often do, they wash their hands of the whole matter and leave it to the entirely unfettered discretion of those on the spot, that is merely an abdication of responsibility, an abdication which takes place week after

week at the Treasury Bench. But that is merely a digression.
It seems to me of the utmost importance tonight that we should assert our responsibility for the dependent territories, whether they be Colonies or Protectorates. It is of particular importance at this moment in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, because there can be no possible question that one of the motives still uppermost in the minds of the Africans of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and, no doubt, of Southern Rhodesia as well, is the fear that in 1960 they are going to be handed over to the Federal Government.
When I was in Salisbury as long as three years ago, I read some of the speeches which were being made in the Federal Assembly by Lord Malvern and others. We had references to the possibility of a Boston tea party, and Lord Malvern himself—Sir Godfrey Huggins, as he was then—getting up in the Assembly and referring to the all-important words in the preamble to the Constitution about going forward to self-government when all the inhabitants so desired, and expressing the view that that was merely a form of words which had no binding legal effect.
We have been told in this House in the last few days more than once that the assurances given in 1953 still hold good. We have been told that the Government stand by the words of the preamble of the Constitution. What we have never been told is how the desires of the inhabitants of these territories are going to be ascertained, and the fact that we have not been told that is, as I believe, one of the main contributory factors to the unrest in all these territories today.
Further, no one doubts that we are faced with an extremely difficult and dangerous situation, and it is more desirable than ever before that hon. Members in this House should seize every opportunity that may be open to them to visit these territories and form their own firsthand impressions. There are a good many hon. Members, both on the other side of the House and on this, who have had the opportunity to visit West Africa, East Africa or Central Africa, or maybe all three parts of Africa, during recent years. I think they would all agree that there is all the difference in the world between trying to study a situation from


text-books and newspaper reports and forming one's own impressions when one goes to visit scenes so utterly different from anything which exists in this country. We all know the difficulty of obtaining precise and up-to-date information.
I can remember, as can many of my hon. Friends, I think, the African representatives who came here at the time when federation was being discussed. They came from Northern Rhodesia and from Nyasaland, and there are a number of us here who had the privilege of assisting them in those days to try to put their case before the British public. That was a tremendous effort on their part, and it was accomplished only because many thousands of Africans scraped up whatever small sums they could afford to enable their spokesmen to come here and express their fears about federation. That cannot happen very often, and because it cannot happen very often it is more than ever important that hon. Members of this House themselves should visit the territories and visit them as frequently as can possibly be managed.
What is the position? If any hon. Member of this House visits either of these territories in order to discover for himself what is happening, is he liable to be refused admission or to be turned out after arrival merely at the whim of the Federal Government? That is the question which we want to put tonight, and it is a question which the Under-Secretary did not attempt to answer. We ask him: Are we to understand that no representations and no protests will issue from Her Majesty's Government in this country? If that be so, we arrive at this situation. A Member of this House, in the exercise of his Parliamentary duties, whether or not he combines it with any other occupation, may freely visit Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika or Zanzibar if he has obtained a permit. That is a mere formality, and no one suggests that it would be refused. But as soon as he goes a little further and arrives at the forbidding frontiers of Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland, where he has precisely the same degree of Parliamentary responsibility, he is entirely at the mercy of the Federal Government.
We were given an assurance, which I am bound to say did not appeal very much to me, that if somebody went on

something like an official visit the necessary facilities would be granted. This is the distinction which the Under-Secretary sought to draw on Monday, when he said that my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury was merely on a private visit. I am bound to say that this is a distinction which I, for one, entirely fail to understand. It would be an extremely dangerous thing. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is Russian."] One of my hon. Friends says "It is Russian." It would be an extremely dangerous thing for this House if it were to be laid down that if hon. Members go on some officially sponsored mission, such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association or the Inter-Parliamentary Union, or whatever it may be, then facilities may be provided, but that if they go in any other way, or if, for example, they go at their own expense and not at the public expense, we should not give them any similar facilities. Is this distinction to be drawn between an hon. Member who goes under official auspices and an hon. Member who goes simply because he wants to discharge his Parliamentary duties and to find out what is going on?
We on this side of the House are extremely concerned about the treatment of our hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury, largely because he is not the only person who has been declared a prohibited immigrant in the Federation in the last few years. As we have been reminded, there has been a series of such people. There was the case of Mr. Basil Davidson, who was declared a prohibited immigrant in Central Africa and, by a singular coincidence, was declared a prohibited immigrant at the same time in the East African Territories, too. There was Mr. A. E. Lewis, who was appointed Secretary to the Northern Rhodesian European Mine Workers' Union. He was not allowed to take up his appointment; he was a prohibited immigrant.
There was Miss Rosalind Ainsley, the correspondent of Africa South. She went to Central Africa and committed the indiscretion of staying with an African household, and she was declared a prohibited immigrant. Only last summer there was Commander Fox Pitt, who had spent the greater part of his life in the Federation. For about 20 years he was a district provincial commissioner inside the Federation. Last summer he, too, was told that he might not return to revisit


any part of the Federation. The only
thing which could be said against him was that he was an opponent of the federal scheme throughout. There are also some of the arrests which have taken place recently and for which no explanation has been furnished, such as that of Mr. Clutton-Brock.
The case of my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury is therefore only the climax. When we look at the whole history of the last three or four years in relation to the use of immigration powers in the Federation, it is impossible to avoid the suspicion that the Federal Government are using their powers in an entirely arbitrary manner against anyone of whose political views they disapprove. This is in no way a personal issue. Naturally, we on this side of the House resent that one of our colleagues should be treated with obvious and gross discourtesy. But this is a question which affects the whole House of Commons and, indeed, Parliament.
I put two question a moment ago. Let me make them abundantly clear. May we have precise and specific answers? First, is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that whether a British Member of Parliament may visit Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland should depend upon the unfettered discretion of the Federal Government in Salisbury? If this is not their view, what steps do they propose to take to preserve the rights of British Members of Parliament in relation to these territories? I hope that we shall have answers to those questions.

8.4 p.m.

Sir Patrick Spens: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot). I know that he is a better constitutional lawyer than I am, but I disagree entirely with practically everything he said about the legal rights of the Federation and the way in which they have exercised them.
In as much as there is the possibility of a question of Privilege being raised, it would be improper for me in any way to discuss the actions or words of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse). I might have to do that in another capacity as a member of the Committee of Privileges at a later date, and it would therefore be improper for

me to say anything about them this afternoon. I therefore do not propose to do so.
I shall deal with the Motion of
censure which, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) pointed out, can be divided into two parts, and, if I may, I want to deal first with the second part of it. This asks the House to declare
that the entry of a citizen of the United Kingdom into a British Protectorate should not be subject to the veto of the Federal Government of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
Replying to the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, I assert that this is subject to the veto of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, because this Parliament has given them that power. They have it as a matter of law, as has been very clearly explained in the Paper which we have all had. It is also clearly indicated in a letter in The Times this morning from a lawyer learned on these subjects. It had been pointed out that the phrase in this Constitution has been taken from the Australian Constitution and that it has been held by a High Court in Australia that everything which the Federation has done is within these powers which we have given.

Mr. H. Hynd: But that is Australia.

Sir P. Spens: That does not matter. All these constitutions have certain common forms, and this is
one which runs through a great many constitutions which we have given to Colonies on their road to independence and when they have become completely independent units. I do not think that there is the slightest doubt about what these powers mean.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman attach any importance to the fact that Australia is a Dominion and therefore has certain rights under the British Nationality Act, 1948, which do not belong to any Protectorate or Colony?

Sir P. Spens: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is an excellent lawyer, too, and he knows quite well that on the construction of the words and what the powers mean, the decisions of an Australian High Court deserve all the respect of English lawyers


when we come to construe them. I do not think that there is the slightest doubt but that, under the powers which we have given them, the Federation have the right to veto or declare a prohibited immigrant any citizen who goes to that country.
The concession which they have made, which was announced this afternoon, is merely that if a Minister or a Member of Parliament or some other official is sent on a deputation by the authority of this country and by arrangement with them, nothing of that sort would happen. I think that there is no question whatever that it would not have happened in any circumstances, but we have an undertaking from them to reinforce that view.
What that part of the Motion means is that the House is trying to go back on the powers which we gave in the Federal Constitution. It is a very serious constitutional matter that the House should be sitting for the third occasion condemning the Government of the Federation for the way in which they exercise powers which we ourselves have delegated to them.
That is what we are doing and, having had a good deal of experience of criticisms from the House of Commons of overseas Governments, I cannot over-emphasise the resentment which is being felt by the Government of the Federation and all those who are helping in the administration. The danger is that they will be saying, "The British Parliament gave us these powers and trusted us to exercise them, but the moment we exercise them in a way, on political lines, of which one party does not approve, or indeed of which the whole House may not approve, we must be stopped from having those powers to exercise."
This is what the Opposition are doing. They are demanding back the powers which we gave the Federation in 1953. Certainly the Motion cannot possibly be a good one for the House to pass, because it is absolutely contrary to the legal position. In those circumstances, there is no justification whatever for the second part of the Motion.
I turn to the first part of the Motion. When I asked a question on Monday, I suggested that it was out of order for us to discuss in the House the way in which a Government of a subordinate unit in

the Commonwealth exercised powers given to it. That obviously goes too far. It is quite true that we cannot ask direct questions, because no Minister is responsible for the actions of an independent Government of a subordinate unit. On the other hand, it has been the immemorial practice of the House that when any British citizen, either in a foreign country or in any part of the Commonwealth, is in trouble the House finds a way to debate the matter and to do its best to try to solve the difficulty that has occurred.
When we question in the House the action of an independent sovereign power, it is a very serious constitutional matter and one that ought only to be entered into with grave responsibility. Erskine May says, quite rightly, that in debating the matter no objectionable phrases should ever be used. The speech made today by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was a much more responsible one than the speech that we heard from him earlier in the week.

Mr. H. Hynd: It met with no response whatever.

Sir P. Spens: I have no doubt at all that it was very much appreciated by everybody that he addressed the House today in that tone, as opposed to the tone in which he addressed it in his earlier speech. I at any rate very much appreciated the change and realised that the Opposition now grasp how very serious it is to rise in wrath against an independent Administration. It is a serious matter for us even to suggest censure indirectly. If the Motion of Censure is passed, we are passing a Motion of censure against the administration of the Federation.

Mr. S. Silverman: Why should we not?

Sir P. Spens: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne asks why we should not. We give an independent power to a country. Then the hon. Member says, "Why should we not criticise the way they operate?"

Mr. S. Silverman: What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman getting so indignant about? We give powers to many people. We give powers to judges, magistrates, peace officers and Ministers. It does not remove from us the power, and in proper cases the right, to complain of the way they use the powers.

Sir P. Spens: I said earlier that from time immemorial we have had the right, in proper cases, to discuss these matters, but only in proper cases and only in language and with the responsibility which is worthy of this Parliament, and not in the way in which this question has been discussed during the last few days.

Mr. S. Silverman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, no doubt quite unconsciously, has shifted his ground. He might be perfectly entitled, if he thinks proper, to criticise the Motion which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) moved, because of the language used, or criticise his speech if he does not think it was a good one, but that is not what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was saying before. What he was saying before was that, when one has given powers, one must not criticise the persons to whom one has given those powers for the way in which they exercise them. That is a proposition which is an abnegation of the rights of the House of Commons.

Sir P. Spens: I very carefully and expressly denied any such doctrine. The House has the right to criticise administration, even in a foreign independent country, if a British citizen is affected. There is no question about that, but it is a right which has to be exercised with very great responsibility. What I was saying to the House, and I repeat it, was that if the first part of the Motion of Censure is passed it will be regarded in the Federation as a vote of censure on the administration of the Federation by the Federal Government. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne sees no objection to that. There is no reason why we should not do it at a proper time and if it can be done with safety to everybody concerned; but at this time, when the Government of the Federation are dealing with a situation which we know is desperately serious, I suggest to hon. Members that we ought to hesitate long before we go to the length to which the Motion asks us to go today. That is the point I am on. It is the time, the occasion and the situation in Nyasaland.
Instead of arguing, let me plead with hon. Members. After all, I know something about administration in places where there are a few white people amongst millions of coloured people. In

times of crisis what is said in the House of Commons is liable to add to the danger of all those wretched people who are trying to administer these territories an our behalf. I do not mean the businessmen or money-making persons. I mean the people who are administering—the isolated assistant commissioners, the isolated commissioners, the isolated farmers, magistrates and people of that sort. What is said in the House may result in the most desperate events for people of that sort, not only those of our own race, because many of them are not British. Many of them belong to the countries in which they operate.
I beg the House of Commons to realise that at a moment like this, when terrible things may happen and have already happened—and worse may happen in the near future—we ought to hesitate long before either directly or by implication we blame those who are trying to tackle the situation.

8.17 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) was at cross-purposes with his own Front Bench, and I also thought that at times he was at cross-purposes with himself. He certainly contradicted his own arguments more than once during the course of his remarks, but he kept returning to the point that we had given powers to the Federal Government—free and independent powers, he kept repeating—and we ought not to take them back.
If it were clearly established that we had given powers to the extent which the hon. Gentleman says we have, to the extent that hon. Members from the House can be excluded from the Federation, and, in particular, from those parts of the Federation which are under the protection of the House, I believe that there would be in this country a very strong demand that that state of affairs should be altered, as we say in our Motion tonight.
The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations recognised that, by the very important remarks he made at the very end of his speech. Having attacked our Motion all the way through, he then went on to recognise the validity of it by saying that the High Commissioner in the Federation had approached Sir Roy Welensky for an undertaking that


no hon. Member of the House would be refused entry into the Federation on Parliamentary business.
One thing that the hon. Gentleman has done by that admission is to give us our whole case. He has admitted that he has constitutional rights to approach Sir Roy Welensky for assurances of the kind for which we are asking in the Motion.

Mr. Alport: Perhaps I may help the hon. Lady: official business of Parliament.

Mrs. Castle: I am coming to that.
This is the distinction which profoundly alarms us and ought to alarm every hon. Member, because this is a direct attack upon the independent status of Members of the House. It is an attempt to make every
back bencher in this House a creature of the Government and subject to their patronage, bound hand and foot by the shackles of official permission and official authorisation. It is this distinction, which the hon. Gentleman has just made, which shows the difference between the party opposite and us on this issue. This is the kernel of our battle tonight.
We say that the Under-Secretary has admitted that there was nothing wrong in his approaching Sir Roy Welensky for an undertaking of the right of access for an hon. Member of this House, but that he is not prepared, and was not prepared, to do it on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house). He is only prepared to make an approach on behalf of Members of Parliament approved by him and whose actions can be controlled by the Government.

Sir Spencer Summers: What the hon. Lady has, perhaps, failed to realise is that if the undertaking or protection which she seeks to be afforded to all hon. Members, because they are hon. Members, were to be granted, it would enable a Member to go there and to say and do anything he pleased, regardless of the consequences, knowing that he was fully protected.

Mrs. Castle: The first essential of freedom is that one is entitled to do something of which authority disapproves, otherwise we have the Soviet system, and there is then nothing to which we can

object in the Soviet Union. The proud boast that we make in this country is that we are not only allowed to say what Stalin says we may say, but that we are allowed to say something of which he disapproves. The whole essence of the rights of hon. Members of this House in relation to the conditions inside the Federation is that those Members shall have the same protection by Her Majesty's Government and Her representatives overseas whether or not they say something of which the Government here disapprove and of which Sir Roy Welensky disapproves.
Let us consider a little more closely what is the official business of Parliament. It was absolutely contemptible of the hon. Gentleman to try to draw this typical Tory red herring over the scene by suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury had had the cool nerve to combine a visit of Parliamentary inquiry with journalistic work and with some private business. How does the hon. Gentleman imagine that an hon. Member of the House can travel the Commonwealth unless he combines his visit with some other activity?
Is the doctrine of the Conservative Government that it is only permissible for hon. Members of this House to keep in close touch with what is going on in the Commonwealth and in our Colonial Territories if either they have been handpicked for an official visit and go under official tutelage, with the official red carpet laid down and all the visits carefully organised by Government House, or, alternatively, if they have private means, as hon. Members opposite have, to pay their own fare? How, otherwise, are Members of Parliament without private means to go? Of course they must combine their visit with writing for a newspaper or with private business.
Has the Commonwealth Relations Office never given official facilities to Conservative Members of this House who have been in the Commonwealth on private business?

Mr. Alport: We have given help to any Member, of any party, who has come to ask us for assistance, but that help does not constitute, in the case of any Member, the official sponsorship of his visit. That is the point I was making throughout my speech, as the hon. Lady will see if she reads it tomorrow.

Mrs. Castle: If an hon. Member from the Government side of the House decides to go into a Commonwealth country and to charge his fare to his business expense account, as many hon. Members opposite do, does he never get the assistance of Government House and free Government hospitality and proceed to make visits and inquiries as a Member of this House with all the rights of an hon. Member of this House? Hon. Members from the Government side have asked hon. Members from this side to pair with them on such occasions and have even arranged sometimes to take them with them.
Let us stop all this hypocrisy. A Member of Parliament, because he is also engaged in some other activity, cannot divorce himself of his rights of a Member of Parliament. He does not divest himself of them like a piece of clothing. All that this boils down to is that the rights of this House are to be guaranteed by the Government only to Members of whose political views they approve.

Hon. Members: Nonsense.

Mrs. Castle: Does the Under-Secretary of State imagine that if a Conservative Member had gone to Southern Rhodesia for private business interests and, in the course of that visit, had made a speech to Europeans in Salisbury, saying that in his view Dominion status should be granted to them in 1960, the Government would have said that he should be declared a prohibited immigrant for stirring up trouble? There is one law for the Government side of the House and one for this side, just as in the Federation there is at the moment one law for white and one law for black. Distinctions are being drawn along these lines.
When the hon. Gentleman says that he is trying to get undertakings from Sir Roy Welensky, he must realise the serious danger in which every hon. Member of the House is now placed as the result of the Government's failure to fight for my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury. I paid a visit to Southern Rhodesia and the Federation about a year ago. In the course of that visit, I did not address any meetings of Africans. I was not asked to do so. I did nothing but make visits arranged for me by the High Commissioner and with the help of Sir Roy Welensky, all the

usual visits, the Kariba Dam, and so on, in an attempt to learn as much as I could in a short time.
I did one thing, however, that got me blackguarded throughout Southern Rhodesia. That was that I took two fellow Members of Parliament from the Commonwealth to dine with me in Meikle's Hotel, in Salisbury, the crime consisting of the fact that the skin of one of those Members of Parliament was black. As a result, I am informed that in the last Federal election campaign the Dominion Party got its biggest cheer at election meetings when it said that if it was returned to power the first thing that it would do would be to declare me a prohibited immigrant. That is the situation we have reached, and which Her Majesty's Government are conniving at it. We must face the fact that they are prepared to throw away the rights of hon. Members.
I must clear up one statement that the hon. Gentleman made about my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury. The hon. Gentleman made great play of the fact that my hon. Friend had no complaint to make about his inability to get to this House in time for tonight's debate, as facilities were offered to him to go home. The Under-Secretary went on to say that when the plane to Blantyre was cancelled my hon. Friend was offered facilities by the Governor to get to Salisbury.
During my telephone conversation with my hon. Friend this morning, he informed me that the Governor had asked him to go to Salisbury, but that he had made this suggestion on Monday afternoon. When my hon. Friend went to the Lusaka Airport yesterday morning to catch the plane to Blantyre, he was unaware—because nobody up to then had told him so—that the plane had been cancelled.
When he arrived at Lusaka Airport he was unaware, first, that the plane had been cancelled, and, secondly, that a state of emergency had been declared in Nyasaland. It was not until 6.30 yesterday morning that either of those facts were known to him. The hon. Gentleman has, therefore, given a misleading impression. It was on the previous day, on the Monday, that it was suggested to my hon. Friend that he should go to Salisbury.
I have here, in a transcript of the whole conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury, my hon. Friend's reply. He said:
I said I was not prepared—get this point clear—to travel to Salisbury because in the event of travelling to Salisbury, where 400 people had been arrested, including one European, I was not clear about my own personal position in Salisbury.
In other words, my hon. Friend had no confidence that this Government would protect him, any more than Guy Clutton-Brock was protected from the absolutely fantastic behaviour of the Southern Rhodesian Government.
It was for that reason that when it was suggested on the Monday that my hon. Friend should go to Salisbury, he refused. My hon. Friend told me on the telephone this morning that at that time—and this is what is very obscure about the situation—and at no other time, had the Governor of Nyasaland ever withdrawn his official invitation to visit Nyasaland. At no point had he ever received any instructions from Her Majesty's Government, or from the Governor of Nyasaland or of Northern Rhodesia, that he should leave the territory—

Mr. Alport: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady again, but she has just used a term that the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) used—"official invitation". I am not aware that there was any official invitation, although there was an informal invitation from the Governor to stay with him if he went. I would also tell the hon. Lady that I have been assured that the offer that had been made by the Northern Rhodesian authorities to get him to Salisbury was available to him if he had wished to take advantage of it.

Mrs. Castle: Which of them, and when?

Mr. Alport: I refer to transport.

Mrs. Castle: That was on the Monday, when he was unaware of any state of emergency in Nyasaland; unaware that the plane to Blantyre had been cancelled. His invitation from Sir Robert Armitage had not been withdrawn, and he told me that on the Monday evening the Daily Herald correspondent in Blantyre had told him that the Governor of Nyasaland had just made a statement saying that full official facilities would be avail-

able to him in Nyasaland. The argument was still going on on the Monday—

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Is the hon. Lady's argument now that her hon. Friend was going to Blantyre to pursue his planned activities? I understood her to say earlier that he was going there only to come to England. What was his intention?

Mrs. Castle: Blantyre was the way back to England. That is the point. At that stage, there had been no kind of bar on his movement to Nyasaland, and at no stage had it been made clear to him that he could not go there. Therefore, I submit that this suggestion that offers were made to him to get him to Salisbury when it was known that the plane to Blantyre was cancelled, is incorrect. The two took place at separate points of time.

Mr. Alport: indicated dissent.

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but does he deny the crucial fact that it was because of his realising, as he did at 6.30 yesterday morning, that the plane was not flying to Blantyre, that my hon. Friend asked to be allowed to see the Governor of Northern Rhodesia, to ask him to make alternative arrangements to get him back to England?
But he was not allowed to see him. He appealed to the police of the Northern Rhodesia Territory to protect him against the Federal immigration officials and enable him to see the Governor. This request was refused. It was because this new information had come into his possession about the situation in Nyasaland that he was unable to return. Therefore, we have once again been misled by Government statements to this House.
I challenge the hon. Gentleman. Is he saying that at 6.30 yesterday morning my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury was allowed to see the Governor of Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. Alport: What I said to the hon. Lady was, and I say it again, that when the hon. Member arrived at Lusaka Airport he was offered alternative means of transport to Salisbury at 6.30, or whatever the time was yesterday morning.

Mrs. Castle: I challenge that, because it is the opposite of what my hon. Friend told me on the telephone this morning and of which I have a full verbal transcript.
I say once again that one of the difficulties that we are in in this House is that we are constantly being given answers by the Government which do not tally with our own first-hand information. Time and again the Government have based their case on inaccuracies and misstatements of fact. I say to the hon. Gentleman that these are the words of the hon. Member for Wednesbury and that by making this statement here today the hon. Gentleman is, in fact, accusing him of not telling the truth at a time when he has been prevented from coming here to defend himself.
The point is this. Why was my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury, as the result of one speech in Southern Rhodesia, the calmest place in the whole Federation, declared a prohibited immigrant throughout the whole of that territory and denied the protection and assistance of the British Government? We now know why, because the hon. Gentleman has given us the doctrine again tonight. It is only people of whose movements the Government officially approve that they are going to defend, and it is because of that that our Motion is fully justified.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: The speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) contained so many misinterpretations, either mistaken or deliberate, of what my hon. Friend said in opening this debate that it is probably better that they should be dealt with in the course of one's speech rather than have specific attention paid to them.
In the first place, on the legal aspect about which we heard a good deal the other day and shall probably hear more this evening, and in view of the White Paper put before us, I think that most of us are at least agreed that the Federation was legally empowered to do what, in fact, it did do. There may be some difference about that, but I think that is now the generally accepted view of the House.
One point I should like my hon. Friend to answer when he winds up, is the statement by the hon. Member for Wednes-

bury (Mr. Stonehouse) to the effect that the police in Northern Rhodesia failed in their duty because they did not come to his aid to protect him at the airport from forced emigration.
As I understand the position, it is in the relevant Order in Council under the relevant Act that the territorial police, in the case of a legal judgment, must in fact help to enforce it in the territories and that in the case of an executive or administrative action by the Federal authority must not under any circumstances hinder or block the action of the Federal Government in any of the three territories. I think that is the position. I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to deal with that point because it is one of the strong objections made by the hon. Member for Wednesbury which seems, at least, to deserve an answer. I think that the answer is not satisfactory from his point of view, but I should like confirmation on that point.
If we are satisfied that the Federation has been right in law so far as British citizens generally are concerned, is there any reason why an exception should be made in the case of a Member of this House? I concede at once that, whatever the theoretical law may be, a good case can obviously be made out for the practical desirability of a Member of the House of Commons being able to go to those territories for which the House is still responsible, but I follow that by saying that one must, in that context, consider, first, the purposes for which the Member goes, secondly, the background of his visit, and thirdly, whether he behaves with a sense of responsibility when he is there.
Dealing with the last point first, the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn said that it was for Members of Parliament, when they went abroad, to have exactly the same freedom as they have in this country to say what they liked even if it offended the local authorities. That is not a doctrine which we can, with any sense of responsibility, accept. [Interruption.] It applies to everybody. I am not making any party point here. If we delegate authority and functions in the maintenance of law and order to people in an overseas territory, we cannot, in that case, completely ignore the exercise of those functions when those people say that certain things are necessary to safeguard the


security of the territories, and simply take the view that because one is a Member of Parliament one is entitled to say what one likes overseas, exericsing any freedom one chooses.
If one follows that doctrine to its conclusion, it means that any Member of the House of Commons—I do not say that the hon. Member for Wednesbury has—could go out and make grossly irresponsible statements and cause bloodshed. I do not think that any hon. Member opposite will seriously follow the hon. Lady in her thesis that we as Members of Parliament are quite entitled to say exactly what we like when we go to other territories where other people are responsible for enforcing law and order.

Mr. S. Silverman: rose—

Mr. Bennett: I was very careful to interrupt the hon. Lady only on a question of fact. I want other hon. Members to have the opportunity of speaking, and I should therefore be obliged if I could continue to develop this theme.
Secondly, we should look at the background of the visit itself. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who opened the debate, was very unfairly criticised afterwards, and what he said about the hon. Member for Wednesbury was misinterpreted. He did not say that any hon. Member, on either side of the House, could not combine business or journalistic activities with other activities when he went abroad. For one thing, many of us could not afford to go otherwise. What he said, as I understood it—I accept it myself and always follow this course of conduct whenever I go to a Commonwealth country, and I have been to a substantial number—was that one is under two duties when one accepts facilities in going abroad.
First, one declares to the Secretary of State or to the Department here what one's purposes are in going. One says quite frankly what one intends to do. Secondly, when one arrives at the other end, one tells the people there to whom one is introduced what one is doing and what one proposes to do. One does not go with any hidden motives. I frequently go to Canada, for instance, and to other territories. I have from time to time, quite properly, gone to the Commonwealth Relations Office and told the

Department about it. In fact, one is encouraged to do so. Invariably when I go I say that I am going primarily on a business visit or I am going primarily to prepare to write an article, but that when I go I wish also to take the opportunity to look into this or that. I think that all hon. Members will accept that that is the fair thing to do. Plainly, this is one of the things which the hon. Member for Wednesbury did not, in fact, do.
In the context, it is worth quoting the full remarks of Sir Roy Welensky on this point. The paragraph in his speech reads:
The other matter that I wish to refer to is of such importance that I am considering drawing the attention of the Speaker of the House of Commons"—
he is referring to his own House—
to it, becase this is not the first time that it has happened in recent years. Mr. Stonehouse came to the Federation on what he described as a fact-finding, not a fault-finding, mission, as a Member of the House of Commons, and as such he was given opportunities to meet everyone of any standing in the two Rhodesias, both in the Federal and territorial spheres. As a matter of fact, he is on the record as saying that his programme was arranged in Northern Rhodesia by official circles.
Here again is another point about which my hon. Friend complained; this was
not arranged by official circles. If one
has official facilities when one goes abroad for a variety of purposes, one is not sponsored by official circles, and it is a complete travesty and, indeed, dishonest, to suggest that one is. Sir Roy goes on:
The question I believe should be put to the Speaker is whether or not visiting Members of the Commons should not disclose, before they come to the Federation, if they are in fact acting as journalists for a particular newspaper or a particular group of papers in the United Kingdom, because I am satisfied that the facilities which are placed at the disposal of these itinerant politicians would not be extended to the normal newspaperman.
That is surely perfectly fair. If one is going as a newspaperman one is under an obligation to explain the fact that one is there partly as a newspaperman. I am sure that the great majority of hon. Members would do so.

Mrs. Castle: When I went there, Sir Roy Welensky was well aware that I was going for a particular newspaper. It made not the slightest difference. Why should it, if one is on business?

Mr. Bennett: Exactly. The hon. Lady has said that she did not need to tell it to


him. The whole point is that in contrast Sir Roy Welensky did not know about the hon. Member for Wednesbury.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Bennett: We listened to the hon. Lady's hostile speech with some courtesy. I think that perhaps I should be allowed to continue this quotation.

Mr. S. Silverman: rose—

Mr. Bennett: I will not give way again, particularly in the middle of a quotation. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) all too frequently gets in extra speeches in this House by long and tedious interruptions.
The quotation continues:
Mr. Stonehouse stated that he would report to the newspaper he was serving only when he had returned to London. In fact, he dispatched home more than one report during his stay.
If Sir Roy Welensky is right, we must state quite firmly that apparently the hon. Member for Wednesbury told the Prime Minister of the Federation something which was untrue. That is the only possible construction that can be put upon it.

Mr. James Johnson: rose—

Mr. Bennett: I have said that I shall not give way again.

Mr. Johnson: Why not?

Mr. S. Silverman: Some references to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) are inevitable in a debate of this kind because of the terms of the Motion, but is it not the rule of the House that one must not make a personal attack upon an hon. Member, and certainly not accuse him of dishonesty, in his absence and without giving any notice?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Before attacking an hon. Member, it is customary to give him notice, but in this case it is known that the hon. Member will not be here.

Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order. Whether my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury said something which was not true to Sir Roy Welensky is not, I submit to you, Sir Gordon, in any way material to the Motion before the House. If that charge is to be made, ought it not under our rules to be

reserved until my hon. Friend is here to answer it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) is perfectly entitled to make that remark. The responsibility for the accuracy of it rests on him.

Mr. Bennett: Exactly, Sir Gordon. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is now trying to get in an extra speech by way of points of order.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. I submit to you, Sir Gordon, that you would not have accepted my point of order, or replied to it, if you had thought that there was anything improper about it. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to usurp the function of the Chair and he should not declare what is in order and what is not.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We had better get on with the debate.

Mr. Bennett: That is exactly what I did not do, Sir Gordon.
As I said, merely from the point of view of reporting, it is obvious that it is not a matter of making imputations against anyone. If Sir Roy Welensky is right in his speech, the hon. Member he refers to cannot be right, as has been said.
The next thing which we should
decide is whether the hon. Member, while he was out there, behaved in a thoroughly responsible fashion. If one goes to another territory and claims to be going on a fact-finding mission, quite apart from what agencies one may represent, business or otherwise, I cannot see that fact finding can include making public speeches. I shall not deal with whether the speeches in question were bad in their content. I thought that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), in a very restrained and sensible way, if he will forgive the compliment, was perfectly right when he said, in reading the speeches, that there was nothing that could be seen to be offensive in them. Of course, it is not just a matter of content or context in the narrow sense. It is a matter of the atmosphere in which a speech is made.
It was perfectly obvious that an explosive situation was developing in the territories in which he spoke. Any speech


that he cared to make at that time obviously would have an audience, and it was clear that he could cause among that audience a degree of unrest. The hon. Member asked for an introduction to an officer of the High Commissioner who advised him not to make a speech to that audience at that time. There is a moral responsibility on hon. Members who have facilities to go abroad to take the advice given to them by those who give them hospitality. I should like again to quote another part of Sir Roy Welensky's very fair remarks.

Mr. J. Johnson: When was that speech made by Sir Roy Welensky?

Mr. Bennett: Strangely enough, in his own capital, Salisbury, yesterday or today, and it has been telegraphed to London.
I have read one point which Sir Roy regarded as important. He says that another aspect is
the categorical assertion by Mr. Stonehouse that he intended to refuse to obey the laws of the Federation. Now, irrespective of the correctness or otherwise of the attitude of the Federal Government in deciding to declare Mr. Stonehouse a prohibited immigrant, the Government of the Federation is a duly constituted Government, set up under an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. Is it therefore right and proper that a Member of the House of Commons should come here and flout the authority of the Government. He is a visitor in a country in which many people of different races have a very high regard for the views of a Member of the House of Commons, and I personally have the gravest doubt that Mr. Stonehouse's declared intention to flout the authority of the Government of the Federation is likely to receive much support from responsible politicians in the United Kingdom, whether of the Conservative or the Socialist Party.
Apart from a few hon. Members who have spoken tonight, I am sure that there are many hon. and right hon. Members opposite who do not think that it is responsible for a person who goes abroad deliberately to flout the authority of a country of which he is a guest. When one has returned from such a country one can, if one likes, think or say that one has been treated unfairly, but it is an irresponsible act to flout the authority of the Government of a country where one is a guest.
Sir Roy Welensky added:
His example of irresponsibility in this matter is one that would do discredit to some embryonic legislative council, never mind the Mother of Parliaments.

It is sad to think that I and most hon. Members must agree that that criticism by Sir Roy Welensky is thoroughly justified.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Where did my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury flout the Government?

Mr. Bennett: The hon. and learned Member is perfectly free to read the newspapers and the statements made by the hon. Member for Wednesbury in which he categorically said that he intended to disobey and repudiate the authority of the Federal Government and the order for him to leave the territory.

Mr. Walter Monslow: rose—

Mr. Bennett: My purpose in producing these points from the speech by Sir Roy Welensky is not to secure party advantage or to attack the hon. Member for Wednesbury. It is to show only that his visit there and the action taken by the Federal Government must be regarded in the light of the fact that he had no special privileges from this House but was there as an ordinary citizen. If that was so and he did not behave himself in a responsible fashion in these circumstances, he had no right to special privileges which are not available to ordinary citizens. It is clear that in those circumstances the Federation was acting perfectly rightly in what it did.
Recently I raised the case of Mr. Shawcross who was excluded from Ghana under rights no greater and no less than those which the Federal Government utilised on this occasion. I am not speaking about the wisdom of the action, but legally the Federal authority had as much right to exclude the hon. Member for Wednesbury as a British citizen as the Government of Ghana had to exclude Mr. Shawcross. [An HON. MEMBER: "But this is a Protectorate."] I say that if the position of the law is as it is deemed to be in this respect, there is no difference between the Federation and a Dominion. If on this occasion the Federation was acting legally, in the case of Ghana it was acting no more and no less legally in getting rid of Mr. Shawcross. Of course, we have yet to hear the two distinguished lawyers make their points at the end of this debate,


but I am presuming for the argument that they acted legally, and I am not for the moment talking about wisdom. Why is it that on that occasion we did not have a Motion of censure? Why was my right hon. Friend not asked to deliver protests at that time?

Mr. John Hynd: Because it was not a Tory Member of Parliament who was deported.

Mr. Bennett: That is a singularly silly observation. In neither case was a Tory Member of Parliament involved.
The only reason why there was no objection before was because it was not an hon. Gentleman on the benches opposite. That is why his party did not do it. Another point already made in Rhodesia is that in this case it is somebody who is expelled, who is alleged to be on the side of the Africans. In the other case, it was a European who was being ejected by an African Government and therefore no objections were made.

Mr. Monslow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bennett: No. Let me add that I do not think any objection should have been made in the case of Mr. Shawcross. As my right hon. and learned Friend who spoke earlier rightly said—

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: An objection was made. I made it.

Mr. Bennett: When we in this House criticise the discretion given to independent territories, whether it is Ghana or the Federation or any other country, it does no good; it merely excites hostilities in those countries.

Mr. Brockway: Will the hon. Gentleman be fair to me?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member will not give way, the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) must sit down.

Mr. Brockway: May I put this point of order to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? The hon. Gentleman has said that when Mr. Shawcross was deported from Ghana no objection was made from this side of the House. I want him, in fairness, to allow me to say—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the fact that the statement is untrue, may I ask for your protection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? May I be allowed to say that on that occasion, as on all occasions, I protested against deportation?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Bennett: When I referred to there being no objection, I was thinking of the Labour Party as the official Opposition.

Mr. David Jones: Come off it.

Mr. Bennett: Of course I was. It is abundantly clear. This Motion is an official Opposition Motion of censure. Whatever the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) may or may not have done, his actions could not be regarded in the same way as the official Motion of censure on this occasion.
Now I turn to the question of aeroplanes for the moment, and whether the hon. Member for Wednesbury could have got back to answer the charges made here. When I first heard the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn this afternoon say that he was only going to Blantyre in order to get to Salisbury to catch a plane back to this country, I was amazed. I lived for some little time in those territories, and to suggest that the best way to get to England is by way of Blantyre and Salisbury is like saying one is going to Birmingham by way of Beachy Head.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bennett: No. The hon. Gentleman had a good time with his plane times this afternoon; now I am going to give my schedule. When the hon. Member for Wednesbury arrived at Lusaka at 6.30 in the morning, it is true that he could have caught a plane to Blantyre had it been running, which it was not, and that this would have got him to Blantyre at 11.40. He would then have left Blantyre for Salisbury, assuming that he wanted to take this incredible 600-mile journey instead of the 250-mile direct route, leaving at 1510 hours on aircraft EC507, reaching Salisbury at 1640 hours. The only discrepancy, if he had taken


that roundabout way, if the plane had been running, is that the plane from Salisbury for London would have left at 1435 hours and therefore he would have been two hours too late. If he had taken the opportunity to go direct from Lusaka to Salisbury, he could have breakfasted comfortably at Lusaka, while being photographed, and then caught a plane at 0820 reaching Salisbury at 0930 and then catching the Salisbury-London plane arriving in London in time to be here for the debate.
Those are the facts which have been given to me through the airline company's time-table. They are not a matter for dispute, and if I am wrong I will apologise on my behalf and that of the company. I have given the times and numbers of the aeroplanes. If what I have said is correct, it is obvious that the hon. Member could have been here in time to answer the charges, as was said earlier. [HON. MEMBERS: "What charges?"] There is another feature about which we are entitled to be informed.
The only time I interrupted the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn was to ask for this information. I do not want to make this charge unless it is fair. Did the hon. Member for Wednesbury go to Blantyre to come back to England, or was he going to Blantyre to accept an invitation because he did not accept the authority of the Federal Government? He cannot have it both ways. Was he going to Blantyre to assert his rights and stay with the Governor, or to change planes there and come back to England?
The hon. Lady said that whichever it was, he was entitled to do it, but we are entitled to know whether he was on his way back here, or was exercising his right of free speech. Perhaps we can be told which of those courses he was pursuing.

Mr. Benn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bennett: No, the hon. Gentleman will not.
I want to conclude on a much wider topic. The last few days have been a genuine tragedy for the future of the Federation. I am not for a moment making a party point, but once again I say how grateful I was to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East that he did much to remove some of my fears about what

may take place. Those fears should be above party. In the Rhodesias, as elsewhere, the one thing that upsets people is violent criticism from another country. We all ought to know that. One of the safest ways of making sure that a Government to whose actions one objects stays in power is to do just that. There will already be deep resentment. I do not say whether it is justified or not, but no hon. Member can imagine that other than great harm has been done to our relations with the Federation. If we proceed in this way, there will be serious consequences.

Mr. Monslow: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Bennett: If this vendetta between the party opposite and Sir Roy Welensky, the Southern Rhodesian Government and the Federal Government continues on its present path, one or more of several disasters will occur.

Mr. Monslow: May I make a statement?

Mr. Bennett: No.

Mr. Callaghan: rose—

Mr. Bennett: I will give way since I have referred to the hon. Member directly.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member has referred, as did the Colonial Secretary last night, to a vendetta between the Federal Government and the Labour Party. The hon. Member for Leominster (Sir A. Baldwin) did the same thing. I am not aware of any such vendetta. We maintain that there are certain standards of behaviour and conduct which we
believe should be observed by Governments overseas. It is our intention to try to see that, so far as possible, they adhere to those standards. If they do, of course there will be no attack, but if they do not we shall pursue them where we think that they are transgressing.

Mr. Bennett: I accept immediately the assurance of the hon. Member that he does not believe that there is a vendetta. I can only say that that is not believed in the Federation, and I do not know who could blame the people there if they believed there was a vendetta when, in the last seventy-two hours in this House, the Prime Minister of the Federation has


been referred to as untrustworthy and incapable of leadership, and also accused of being guilty of a deliberate conspiracy to force a showdown. Would any hon. Member think that that sort of language is wise to use about the Prime Minister of a Commonwealth country? Would we like it if a Commonwealth country were to make remarks of that kind about us? It is obvious that the right hon. Gentleman really shares this view because in his speech he made none of the observations which have been such a sorry feature of our debates in the last few days.
If the theme is developed that there is wide distrust of the party opposite on the part of the Federation, it is not by any means scaremongering to say that if they come into office we shall face very serious trouble in our relations with the Federation. I wonder whether hon. Members opposite realise what will be the effect on the peoples they pretend to protect if the Federation breaks up. At present, no less than £4 million goes to Nyasaland from the Federal Government as a contribution towards financing that country, and if the Federation breaks up—

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: On a point of order. Are we discussing the economy of Nyasaland or the actions of the Federal Government?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are discussing the Motion which is before the House.

Mr. Bennett: Remarks were made earlier about the effects on the Federation, and nobody was called to order. I thought that I was perfectly right in mentioning the matter again.
I am saying that if this disruptive tendency continues to break up the Federation there is no doubt that Nyasaland will suffer, and that Southern Rhodesia will tend to look southwards. I do not know whether anybody believes that that will benefit the African people living in Southern Rhodesia. Similar considerations apply to Northern Rhodesia.
Whatever hon. Members opposite may think, it would be remarkably foolish for us to continue upon a course which could end in disaster, and the responsibility in this matter lies very largely in this country and of it the main part remains very much with the Opposition, who have again recently signally failed to realise it.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The speech to which we have just listened contained only one mark of distinction. That was that the hon. Member, unlike any other hon. Member opposite, pretended to give some reasons that might conceivably have justified the actions of the Federal Government towards my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse). But what were they? He made a great deal of play with the assertion that my hon. Friend had flouted the law of the Federation. In what respect and at what stage did he do so? It is not suggested that he did it at any point except when he said that he could not accept the order made against him. Up to that point there was no suggestion that he had in the slightest or most technical manner flouted the law of the Federation. It cannot, therefore, be suggested as a reason for the prohibited immigrant order made about him that he had flouted the law, because no question of his having done so in any respect arose until after the declaration that he was a prohibited immigrant had been made.
I stress this point because, starting with the speech of the Under-Secretary of State, we have had a series of attempts to smear the personal character of my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury. That was done because those who were making the speeches knew that they could produce no valid reason to justify the action of the Federal Government.
I will not argue the legalities of the matter because, whatever view may be taken about the legal rights of the Federation, the point remains that if a British subject is travelling even in a foreign country and that country treats him in a manner which, although it may be in accord with its law, is none the less unwise, uncivil, and contrary to the general practice of civilised people, it is considered to be part of the duty of our Government at the very least to make an inquiry and, if necessary, to protest about it. It is complete irrelevance to pretend that the Motion must be regarded primarily as a censure on the authorities in Africa. We are concerned, as we must be, in the first instance with the Government here.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury was prevented from going about his business for no adequate reason at all. If such shadows of reasons as have been produced


in this debate had been advanced by any foreign Government as a reason for interfering with the behaviour of a British citizen there would have been indignation in every part of the House. But this time it is a Government with certain racial aspirations with which certain hon. Members opposite have a great deal of sympathy, and the person incommoded is a Labour Member of Parliament. That is why we have had the attitude that we have had tonight.
What conceivable reasons could be alleged? At one time my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury was told that it was necessary for his own safety to get him out of the Federation. But the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies who answered a Private Notice Question on Friday said, with his usual smile, with regard to the cancellation of Lord Perth's visit, that there was no question of there being any risk to safety. So that reason must be written off.
Is it suggested that the hon. Member for Wednesbury behaved in an illegal or improper manner and that that was the cause of the order of deportation? What has been suggested in criticism of his conduct? Does any hon. Member anywhere in the House seriously suggest that the speech which was quoted to us at considerable length by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) could either in intention or in effect have damaged or injured the situation in East Africa? Everyone must have seen that both its intention and its effect wore wholly pacific and wholly desirable. It was also alleged against my hon. Friend that he was in an hotel in company with people with black skins. Do hon. Members opposite regard that as a discreditable action? Do they regard it as an adequate reason for interfering with a British citizen visiting a part of the Commonwealth?
The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) was no doubt anxious that little time should be given to this side of the House to develop its case and he took up a very great deal of time. Therefore, I propose to make one brief remark more only.
The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) took the view that it was proper in this House in certain circumstances to criticise the conduct of individual States, but he also took the view that that ought to be done

in temperate language and with a proper sense of timing. Is it suggested anywhere in the House that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East was other than temperate or magnanimous? The right hon. and learned Gentleman could not have criticised it on that ground.
As to the timing, if it is considered undesirable, with a view to the whole aspect of the African situation—everyone knows how grave it is—that we should vote on this Motion tonight, if that is considered to be had timing, the remedy is in the Government's hands immediately. I was surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not address a plea to his own Front Bench to accept our very reasonable offer. We do not want, if it can be honourably avoided, to divide the House tonight. We have suggested a method which the Government can adopt to avoid such a decision with credit to themselves and credit to the House. We earnestly hope that in their reply we shall hear that they propose to adopt it.

9.15 p.m.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: This, of course, is a House of Commons concern. I myself was very glad when the Leader of the House emphasised yesterday that it was clear to him, before he came to the House, that this was obviously a matter of first-class importance to the House of Commons. It is true that the hon. Member involved in this case is a Member from this side of the House—the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse). It is equally true that if by any chance, say, the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) had found himself a prohibited immigrant, we should have been equally concerned about it.
The Motion which we have put before
the House falls into two parts. There is the objection to the Government's failure to protest to the Federal Government of Rhodesia and Nyasaland about designating the hon. Member as a prohibited immigrant, and there is the perfectly general proposition that the entry of a citizen of the United Kingdom into a British Protectorate should not be the subject to the veto of the Federal Government. The position of the hon. Member for Wednesbury is that, while he was in the Protectorate of Northern


Rhodesia on a visit, he was declared by the Federal Government to be a prohibited immigrant, and was deported by the Federal authorities, as far as I can see, with the agreement of the Northern Rhodesian Government.
The first question which arises here
is the authority of the Federal Government to declare the hon. Member a prohibited immigrant. That is not raised directly in the Motion before the House, but the question has been canvassed, and therefore I will refer to it shortly. The question arises whether, under the Constitution of the Federation, the Federal Government have the power to declare the hon. Member a prohibited immigrant. That turns upon the provision in the Constitution that the Federal Government are to have exclusive jurisdiction over immigration into the Federation.
There is in the Constitution no definition of immigration such as we find in quite a number of immigration Acts. Immigration is not a word of art, and we depend therefore, primarily at any rate, upon the dictionary meaning. The dictionary meaning of the word "immigration" is "entrance into a country for the purpose of settling there" Therefore, prima facie, the meaning of the word "immigration" here is confined to entrance into a country for the purpose of settling, which certainly does not cover the hon. Member for Wednesbury.
It is possible, of course, to find circumstances, or indications within a document, which might give a different meaning of immigration, as was found in the case to which the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) referred, concerning an Australian Act of Parliament—a different Statute, in different circumstances, with an independent Commonwealth, and without the complication of protected territories. It is quite clear that the sense in which the House understood immigration was, of course, the dictionary sense—the sense of entry into a country for the purpose of settling there.
I am not concerned on this point with the narrow legal question whether the Federation have legally the power to do what it has done. As the Motion shows, I am much more concerned about the action which the Government have taken upon the footing which they have

adopted that the Federation have the power to pass the law which they have passed. Nevertheless, I start with the assumption that the understanding of the House when it was dealing with the matter was that immigration was confined to entrance into a country for the purpose of settling there.
We have heard tonight that the Government themselves have not felt happy about the legal interpretation which has been adopted, on the Attorney-General's advice, of the word "immigration". They themselves have therefore sought to find some modification, by agreement with the Federal Government, of the operation of the full effect of the word "immigration" included in the Constitution.
Let us consider for a moment the effect of the Government's interpretation of the word "immigration". The proposition, as I understand it, is that the Federation, under the Constitution, can take power to themselves to prohibit any entrance into the Federation by anyone who is not domiciled in the Federation. I gather that from the useful document which has been circulated by the Commonwealth Relations Office.
What does that mean? It means that any Member of Parliament can be forbidden entrance into the Federation at the whim of the Federation. That is exactly what has happened in this case. It could apply to any Parliamentary delegation. Without giving any reason for it, the Federal Government can ban the entry of such a delegation into the Federation. It means that any Parliamentary or other inquiry can be forbidden, defeated and banned. All that can be done under the Act passed by the Federal Government under the constitutional power which exists under the Constitution approved by this House.
The Federal Government could go further under the provision which enables them to forbid immigration. They could forbid persons whose presence there is essential to the administration of the territory. They could forbid a Minister from going into the territory. They have not done so by the
Act which has been passed in the case of civil servants and servants of the Crown, but under this interpretation of the word "immigration" in the Constitution they have authority to take


power to do so. This interpretation means that the Federal Government could stultify our administration of the territories, should they so desire. This is the result of the interpretation which the Attorney-General advises and the Commonwealth Relations Office adopts. It is a ridiculous result which would stultify the operation of the Constitution itself. If that be the true interpretation, then clearly the position is utterly intolerable.
Parliament has a grave responsibility towards the Federation and the territories within the Federation. Indeed, it was an Act of Parliament which established the Constitution. Under the Constitution certain legislation has to be reserved by the Governor-General for Her Majesty's pleasure, which means for the opinion of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. Parliament therefore has powers within the Constitution. Other Bills may be assented
to by the Governor-General. He may withhold his assent, or he may reserve them for Her Majesty's pleasure. Over and above that, Her Majesty, acting through the Secretary of State, may disallow any law passed by the Federal Government. If there is a law for the amendment of a Constitution and it is objected to by the territorial Legislature or by the African Affairs Board on the ground that it is differentiating legislation, again the matter is reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure and the assent to that has to be given by an Order in Council, which is subject to negative procedure in the Houses of Parliament.
Therefore, within the operation of the Constitution there is a strong direct and indirect Parliamentary responsibility. In 1960, seven to nine years after the establishment of the Constitution, there has to be a conference of delegates from the territories, from the Federation and from the United Kingdom, chosen in the case of the United Kingdom by the Government responsible to the House, in order to review the Constitution.
Therefore, throughout the Constitution we have Parliamentary responsibility. Further than that, we have deep Parliamentary responsibility for the two Protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. The Preamble to the Constitution, which has been read in the House before, provides:
And whereas Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland should continue, under the special

protection of Her Majesty, to enjoy separate Governments for so long as their respective peoples so desire.
We have responsibility for the Africans, particularly in the Protectorates. The Africans do not have self government. We are responsible for their Government within the territories, not through the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, but through the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Secretary of State for the Colonies is directly answerable to the House for his administration of those territories. Therefore, we are deeply involved in the administration within the Central African Federation. The residual powers, those powers which are not assigned by the Constitution to the central Government, remain in the territorial Governments for whom the House is directly responsible.
We are responsible for law and order within the territories. Therefore, if law and order within the territories break down, we may be faced with a position where British troops have to be sent into those territories to maintain law and order. That would involve British troops at British expense, constituents of our own, being sent there for that purpose.
The whole of this Constitution is ringed around and shot through with Parliamentary responsibility. We cannot carry out Parliamentary responsibility except through Members of Parliament. Members of Parliament must themselves be assured of means by which they can carry out the responsibility which Parliament has. Members of Parliament are not in the position of ordinary individuals in this matter. They have special obligations, special duties and special responsibilities.

Mr. William Yates: And Reynolds News.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The House of Commons, acting through Members of Parliament, is the instrument of democracy for the democratic government of the territories in the Central African Federation. The hon. Member for Wednesbury has, despite all that, been declared a prohibited immigrant, without a murmur, without a protest, without a bleat from the Government. They have acquiesced in his exclusion from the territory and, as I understand it, they even support it. They did not disallow this Act of Parliament under which the


Federal Government can exclude any Member of Parliament from the Federation, and they have not protested now that that Act of Parliament has been applied.
The Government have been in correspondence with Sir Roy Welensky and they have agreed a formula which attempts to mitigate in some little way the harsh and unreasonable operation of the interpretation of the Constitution which the Government have adopted.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: No, I cannot. [Interruption.] I cannot hear everyone at the same time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give him a chance."] That is a fair point. What the Government have said is that it is essential that we should be assured that there is no intention of the Federal Government to exclude persons on official business on the authority of Parliament. We cannot accept this assurance as being at all adequate. This is merely an assurance between the present Federal Government and the present Government of this country. It is given today for the first time, apparently, under pressure of this debate. It does not apply to Members of Parliament going independently into the Federation, even though they are paying for themselves and going purely to find out the position for Parliamentary purposes. [HON. MEMBERS: "And Reynolds News."] This merely provides that those who go with the sanction of the Government shall be exempt from prohibition.
What is valuable to Parliament on these occasions is not the official delegation from the Government. The Government have their own contacts. What is of value to Parliament is to have the independent view of the independent Member, who speaks up in an independent way. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite guffaw at the suggestion.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Reynolds News.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: They obviously have not met my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way to him."].
The reports which we have had of the deportation are that my hon. Friend the

Member for Wednesbury was deported on Federal Government orders. It is stated that the Northern Rhodesian Government have agreed to this action and that the Northern Rhodesian police were present to support the federal officers if necessary. I should like to know categorically whether my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury was evicted from the Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia with the approval and support of the Government. We were told yesterday that there had been the closest consultation between the Government and the Federation and the territories thoughout this Nyasaland emergency.
The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has said that it was not practicable and not appropriate for my hon. Friend to go into Nyasaland because the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs was not going. Why is it not appropriate because the Minister of State is not going there? Why should he not go because the Government decide that the Minister of State shall not go?
We were told officially by the hon. Gentleman this afternoon why the hon. Member for Wednesbury was evicted from the Federation. The reason given—and this is the official reason—was the difficulty of providing protection. Apparently, it was not because of my hon. Friend's speeches, which the Under-Secretary said were not relevant for this purpose, but simply because of the difficulty of providing protection.
Do we really believe that that is so? Protection from whom? Protection from the Africans—from the people with whom hon. Members opposite say the hon. Member for Wednesbury was too friendly? Or protection from the settlers, whom the Government say are so law-abiding? Protection from whom? I give to the Government the same reply as the British Ambassador gave to the Americans over the English Electric contract: "Tell it to the marines—the sailors won't believe it."
By this device, of course, the hon. Member is not to be there at the very moment when his presence would be most valuable to this House. It is precisely on such an occasion as this that it is valuable to this House to have an independent view from a Member of this House about it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. Perhaps hon. Members opposite are too far to the right to


read the Manchester Guardian, and so to have seen the letter in that newspaper from the Rev. Albert C. McAdam, of the Church of Scotland Mission at Blantyre.
One or two passages in the letter illustrate how valuable it would be to have the hon. Member for Wednesbury there at the present time. The writer denies the Federal reports that missions were burnt down and a missionary stoned. He says:
The truth is that the police initiated violence and acted irresponsibly throughout.
He says:
The local official report here on the incident is not just biased—it is blatantly provocative.
Later he states:
The British Government must intervene and replace Rhodesian troops or Nyasaland is about to take up the newsprint normally devoted to Cyprus.
What we are concerned about is that Members of Parliament should be free to go into these territories, see what is, in fact, going on, and report to this House, and to this country, what is the position within the territories for which this House and this country are responsible. The whole difficulty is that we cannot—under this Constitution, with a Federal capacity for excluding anyone the Federal Government wish—ensure that any Member of this House who wishes to go there can go there, provided he abides by the law within that country.
They might forbid the successor to the present Secretary of State for the Colonies going there. They could forbid the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) going there, just as Franco banned my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). It is exactly the same thing—

Mr. Bevan: Fascists—that is what they are.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: What we are concerned about is that we should have the ability to go to the territories for which we, as a country and as a Parliament, are responsible. We have put forward constructive proposals which we believe will help tremendously in the present situation. Before we decide on the course we shall take we shall await the Government's answer to that proposal, but what the Government are doing in

their treatment of the hon. Member for Wednesbury is to betray their obligations to the House and, in their attitude towards the territory, to betray their trust on behalf of the people there.

9.40 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I think that any lawyer has always found it difficult to combine a clear, logical, legal argument with any kind of political controversy. I cannot congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicestershire, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) on surmounting that task tonight.
I am replying to this debate to deal with legal points which have been raised by hon. Members. I also wish to reply to the question posed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff. South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I would say, at the outset, that that question was put without notice of any kind whatsoever. I am not complaining about my position, but I think that it is very unfair to criticise my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations for not having answered immediately, when he made his speech, a question which was put without notice. [Interruption.] I am rather tempted, in view of the interruptions, to postpone my answer to it. I was proposing to answer it now and if I may be allowed to do so I will.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East said that he put forward this proposal in good faith and, of course, we accept that it was put forward in that spirit. We would not rule out, nor would we ignore, any proposal which would enable Parliament to discharge its responsibilities or to be accurately informed. We consider that the obvious next course is, as was recommended in both Houses yesterday, to pursue the original proposal that my noble Friend the Minister of State for the Colonies, Lord Perth, should pay his visit to Nyasaland at such time as the Governor of Nyasaland thinks would he appropriate, following upon his present visit to East Africa, for which he left today.
The suggestion that the hon. Gentleman
put forward really relates to last night's debate. It has no connection whatsoever with the subject matter of the


Motion which we are discussing today. The hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition have offered not to vote tonight if that suggestion is accepted. We are not prepared to bargain about this matter at all. We are quite prepared to vote on this Motion and we have no doubt that it will be rejected, as it should be.
Now I would like to come to the actual Motion.

Mr. Gaitskell: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, may I say that I deeply regret both what he has said and the way in which he has said it. We put forward this proposal because we honestly believed that it would help to reduce tension in Nyasaland and because it would help the future of the Commonwealth. The Government have rejected it out of hand and my right hon. and hon. Friends will draw their own conclusions from that.

The Attorney-General: I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman. I was not proposing to sit down just at this moment. I am glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. As I made clear, we do not in any way suggest that this proposal was not put forward in good faith, but we have reached a conclusion about it and the conclusion is the one that I have announced.

Mr. Callaghan: It was stated on the wireless that Lord Perth would not go to Nyasaland before 24th March, which is in three weeks' time. We suggest that the tension which is there now could be reduced if an early decision were taken to send a Parliamentary mission. Why cannot the Attorney-General tell us that the Government would be ready to send such a mission at the earliest possible date, and before 24th March?

The Attorney-General: Views about the consequences of sending a Parliamentary mission at this juncture may differ considerably.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East said last Monday that he did not accept the view of the law put forward by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. He said then that there were differences of view about the law. I have been waiting with interest to hear what these differences

are. After some experience at the Bar, I suppose I ought never to be surprised at the capacity of lawyers to differ about anything, but I must say that the hon. and learned Gentleman surprised me tonight.
I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with what I am about to say as I trace the matter by stages. Under the Act of 1953, we gave power to Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to devolve such powers and duties as might be thought fit upon the Federal Legislature. Following that, there came the Constitution Order in Council, in respect of which there was an Address in both Houses so that the House had full opportunity of considering it. The hon. and learned Gentleman's argument depends upon the interpretation to be placed upon the word "immigration" in the first part of the Second Schedule to that Constitution.
I entirely disagree with the narrow meaning that he puts upon that word. All through the Commonwealth, throughout foreign countries, and, I think I am right in saying, in nearly all the Colonies, there are laws dealing with immigration which not only deal with persons who intend to settle in those countries. Immigration covers those who go into a country, whether they intend to settle or intend merely to pay a visit. I should have thought that that was clear beyond doubt. The hon. and learned Gentleman built the whole of his argument upon the basis that immigration meant immigration only for the purposes of settlement. I entirely disagree. That is putting far too narrow a view upon it.
When these powers were given, the Federal Legislature obviously had power to legislate for immigration and emigration. The form of their legislature shows that they thought, in my view rightly—no doubt they were advised upon the matter—that their immigration laws could deal with visitors as well as those who wished to settle permanently.
I do not wish to remind the House in detail of the statutory position set out in the Paper which was prepared in a considerable hurry by the Commonwealth Relations Office, and which I hope the House has found helpful. Under the Act, the Governor-General has power to declare a prohibited immigrant a person who, from information received from any


Government, is deemed by him to
be an undesirable inhabitant of or visitor to the Federation. As I understand,
that action was taken by the Governor-General, and I should, perhaps, make it clear that the action was taken by the Governor-General under the Constitution on the advice of the Executive Council. That being so, there is, under the Act, a right to make representations. I understand that the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) did not make any representations at all about the order which had been made against him. He had an opportunity. It may be that the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that, if he were legislating, something else would be desirable, but that is another matter. He had an opportunity within the limited time of doing so, but I gather that he did not do so.
The legislation passed by the Federal Legislature has obviously, if it is dealing with immigration, to contain powers of removing those who are declared to be prohibited immigrants. The Act, in my view, was clearly within the power delegated by this House to the Federal Legislature and it is primarily a matter—I will come to the question of protest which the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) raised in a moment or two—for the Federal Government to determine how they exercise the powers which they have under that Act. That is the position.
The hon. and learned Member far Leicester, North-East drew attention to the wide scope of the Act. There is a number of persons specified in the Act who cannot be declared to be prohibited persons. The hon. and learned Member is quite right in saying that members of the United Kingdom Parliament are not among that list, he is right in saying that Ministers are not among that list, but it is almost unbelievable that we would require persons to legislate in such a way as to exempt particularly Ministers from the operation of this Section. We have the statement, of which I would remind the House, from Sir Roy Welensky giving that undertaking, that there would be—[An HON. MEMBER: "What has that got to do with it?"] I would have thought that it had quite a lot to do with it.

Mr. Bevan: He is not the Statute.

The Attorney-General: I am not suggesting that he is the Statute. I think that it has quite a lot to do with it, because it makes it clear that there is no risk whatsoever of any Minister or Member of Parliament on official duty being prohibited from going there. [Interruption.] We cannot all speak at the same time. I am trying to deal with the legal position. What seems sense to me—it probably does not seem sense to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) —

Mr. Bevan: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has not given way. The Attorney-General.

The Attorney-General: Time is running short and I have quite a lot of ground to cover.
The Motion falls into two parts.

Mr. Bevan: This is ridiculous.

The Attorney-General: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's criticism or his ruderies.
The Motion, as has been said, contains two parts. I want to say a word or two about the second part, which applies to the entry of a United Kingdom citizen into any British Protectorate. If one accepts that this law is valid, as I do, then it is a law passed by the Federal Legislature applying to the whole of the Federation, and within that Federation there is Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. There can be no doubt that this law covers and applies to them. It would be quite exceptional and wholly unusual for us to insist that there should be any particular right for British citizens to enter any particular overseas territory belonging to the Commonwealth or of a colonial character. The immigration laws of these countries apply usually to everyone. There may be exceptions, as there are in this case, but not exceptions based on British nationality or citizenship.
I now turn to the first part of the Motion, which condemns Her Majesty's Government for failing to protest at the hon. Member for Wednesbury being designated as a prohibited immigrant. I would say to the House that if self-government is to mean anything practically it must mean that the country which


is governing itself must have power to exclude persons who want to enter that country. Having given power to the Federal Government to exclude visitors to a British Protectorate, we cannot turn round and attack the exercise of that power. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I take it that it has not been suggested that the hon. Member for Wednesbury was entitled to any special privileges on this visit, or special treatment because he is a Member of the House. I understood that that was the basis.
A Member who travels abroad for reasons connected with journalism, or with business, or for any other private reasons is not entitled to any greater privileges or rights than any other citizen of the United Kingdom. That is my answer to the contention put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot), who suggested that there were some special rights attaching to hon. Members travelling abroad.

Mr. Foot: Not special rights—special obligations.

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member. I would have thought that foremost among those obligations was obedience to the laws of that particular territory. When

the hon. Member for Wednesbury was given notice that he was a prohibited immigrant and when, in accordance with the requirements of the law, it was sought to remove him from the territory, he resisted; and that was certainly flouting the law of that territory.

Mr. Callaghan: He was removed because of his political views.

The Attorney-General: I conclude by saying that whether a person is an undesirable inhabitant or visitor is solely for the Government of the Federation. It is one thing to make inquiries to find out what has happened. It is another thing to lodge a protest. I am sure that the House, if it reflects calmly, will agree that the Government should not lodge a protest with another Government without good and sufficient reasons. The Government made inquiries about the position, but I suggest to the House that there were no reasons here for protesting on the ground of any illegality of treatment or any inhumanity directed to the hon. Member for Wednesbury. It is for that reason that I ask the House to reject the Motion.

Question put:—

The House divided:—Ayes 237. Noes 293.

Division No. 55.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Champion, A. J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Ainsley, J. W.
Chapman, W. D.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Albu, A. H.
Chetwynd, G. R.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cliffe, Michael
Gibson, C. W.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Clunie, J.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P, C.


Awbery, S. S.
Coldrick, W.
Greenwood, Anthony


Bacon, Miss Alice
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Baird, J.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Grey, C. F.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Cronln, J. D.
Grimond, J.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Hale, Leslie


Benson, Sir George
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Beswick, Frank
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hamilton, W. W.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hannan, W.


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Deer, C.
Hastings, S.


Blyton, W. R.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hayman, F. H.


Board man, H.
Delargy, H. J.
Healey, Denis


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Diamond, John
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Dodds, N. N.
Herbison, Miss M.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Donnelly, D. L.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Bowles, F. G.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)


Boyd, T. C.
Edelman, M.
Holman, P.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Holt, A. F.


Brockway, A. F.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Houghton, Douglas


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hoy, J. H.


Burke, W. A.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Hunter, A. E.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Callaghan, L. J.
Fletcher, Eric
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Foot, D. M.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)




Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Snow, J. W.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Janner, B.
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Oram, A. E.
Sparks, J. A.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Oswald, T.
Spriggs, Leslie


Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs, S.)
Owen, W. J.
Steele, T.


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Padley, W. E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Paget, R. T.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Stross,Dr.Barnet(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Swingler, S. T.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pargiter, G. A.
Sylvester, G. O.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Parker, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Kenyon, C.
Parkin, B. T.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Peart, T. F.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Ledger, R. J.
Pentland, N.
Thornton, E.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Timmons, J.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Prentice, R. E.
Tomney, F.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Lindgren, G. S.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Usborne, H. C.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Probert, A. R.
Viant, S. P.


McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Warbey, W. N.


McCann, J.
Randall, H. E.
Watkins, T. E.


MacColl, J. E.
Rankin, John
Weitzman, D.


MacDermot, Niall
Redhead, E. C.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Reeves, J.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


McLeavy, Frank
Reid, William
Wheeldon, W. E.


MacMillan. M. K. (Western Isles)
Reynolds, G. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rhodes, H.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Willey, Frederick


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mason, Roy
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Mayhew, C. P.
Ross, William
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Mellish, R. J.
Royle, C.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Messer, Sir F.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Winterbottom, Richard


Mitchison, G. R.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Monslow, W.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Woof, R. E.


Moody, A. S.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Moss, R.
Skeffington, A. M.
Zilliacus, K.


Moyle, A.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)



Mulley, F. W.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Pearson.


NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Donaldson. Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Aitken, W. T.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Doughty, C. J. A.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Brooman-White, R. C.
du Cann, E. D. L.


Alport, C. J. M.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bryan, P.
Duncan, Sir James


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Burden, F. F. A.
Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)


Arbuthnot, John
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Armstrong, C. W.
Butler, Rt. Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Errington, Sir Eric


Ashton, H.
Campbell, Sir David
Erroll, F. J.


Astor, Hon. J. J,
Carr, Robert
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.
Cary, Sir Robert
Fell, A.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Channon, H. P. G.
Finlay, Graeme


Balniel. Lord
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fisher, Nigel


Barber, Anthony
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Barlow, Sir John
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Forrest, G.


Barter, John
Cole, Norman
Fort, R.


Batsford, Brian
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Cooke, Robert
Freeth, Denzil


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Cooper, A. E.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gammans, Lady


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Corfield, F. V.
Gibson-Watt, D.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Glover, D.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Glyn, Col. Richard H.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Godber, J. B.


Bingham, R. M.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip-Northwood)
Goodhart, Philip


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Cunningham, Knox
Gough, C. F. H.


Bishop, F. P.
Currie, G. B. H.
Gower, H. R.


Black, Sir Cyril
Dance, J. C. G.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Body, R. F.
Davidson, Viscountess
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Deedes, W. F.
Green, A.


Boyle, Sir Edward
de Ferranti, Basil
Gresham Cooke, R.


Braine, B. R.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.







Gurden, Harold
Loveys, Walter H.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Renton, D. L. M.


Hare, Rt. Hon, J. H.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Robertson, Sir David


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McAdden, S. J.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Roper, Sir Harold


Hay, John
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Russell, R. S.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
McLean, Nell (Inverness)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Sharpies, R. C.


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Shepherd, William


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hinchingbroke, Viscount
Maddan, Martin
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Hope, Lord John
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hornby, R. P.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Speir, R. M.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Horobin, Sir Ian
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Marshall, Douglas
Stevens, Geoffrey


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Mathew, R.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Mawby, R. L.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Howard, John (Test)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. c.
Storey, S.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Moore, Sir Thomas
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hutchison, Michael Clarke(E'b'gh, S.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Teeling, W.


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Neave, Airey
Temple, John M.


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Nicholls, Harmar
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Iremonger, T. L.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Oakshott, H. D.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Joseph, Sir Keith
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Kaberry, D.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S,
Vickers, Miss Joan


Keegan, D.
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Osborne, C.
Wakefield, Ernest (Derbyshire, W.)


Kershaw, J. A.
Page, R. G.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Kimball, M.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Lagden, G. W.
Partridge, E.
Wall, Patrick


Lambton, Viscount
Peel, W. J.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)



Pike, Miss Mervyn
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Pitman, I. J.
Webster, David


Leather, E. H. C.
Pitt, Miss E. M
Whitelaw, w. S. I.


Leavey, J. A.
Pott, H. P.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Leburn, W. G.
Powell, J. Enoch
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wood, Hon. R.


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Profumo, J. D.
Woollan, John Victor


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Sutton Coldfield)
Ramsden, J. E.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Rawlinson, Peter



Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Redmayne, M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Longden, Gilbert
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Heath and Mr. Legh.

JODRELL BANK RADIO TELESCOPE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Bryan.]

10.10 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: Jodrell Bank telescope is unique in the world. I wish my voice had the penetrating powers which that telescope has. Hon. Members would be able to hear me then. There is nothing to compare with this telescope in all the world. [An HON. MEMBER: "Except the Attorney-General."] The telescope cannot be seen through, but the Attorney-General can. The telescope is tracing the paths of the rockets which have been sent both by America and Russia and are now circumnavigating the sun. It is certain that the telescope is one of the things which the Prime Minister could boast about during his recent visit to Russia, and the whole House will probably agree that this is the most marvellous invention and application of British skill and ingenuity that we have had in the last few years.
The cost of the telescope was £700,000. The original estimate was for an expenditure of £335,000, but the telescope took eight years to build, during which time costs rose. I want to break down the figures referring to costs as given in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee so that the House can understand the point that I am trying to make. The original grant from the Government, based upon the first estimate of £335,000, was £230,000, added to which was a grant of £200,000 from the Nuffield Trust. The Government subsequently made an extra grant of £130,000, making a total of £560,000 in grants, or £140,000 less than the cost of the telescope. I must make it clear that this £140,000 remains as a debt. Even though the telescope is not affected by the atmospheric clouds surrounding the earth it is certainly affected by the black cloud of debt which overhangs the installation.
I now come to some controversial matters. The question of the increased cost of the telescope, over and above the original estimate, was investigated by the Public Accounts Committee in 1957, and

in its Report the Committee complained that the Government had not been currently informed of alterations. There had been no consultation about increased prices. The Committee also complained that the engineering consultants had changed the design without consultation. There was an inference that they were thereby involved in the creation of the additional cost. With regard to the consulting engineer, it was said that there had been no consultation even with Manchester University.
The consulting engineers are Messrs. Husband and Company, of Sheffield, and the
material for the telescope was supplied by the United Steel Company, Sheffield. I am proud—this is one of the reasons why I am here tonight—that the inventive skill and material of Sheffield have made the finest telescope in the world.
While at a subsequent inquiry the firm of Messrs. Husband and Company and the United Steel Company were completely cleared of the charges which had originally been accepted by the Public Accounts Committee, the debt remains. Neither Husband and Company nor United Steels have yet been paid for the work that they have done in respect of the telescope.
While Sheffield firms were cleared, I am afraid that Manchester University was not. I am not here to defend Manchester University. I think it was lax in not consulting the Treasury at important stages of development. It may be said—I do not know whether there is any truth in this—That the Treasury might have given more examination to what was taking place because it had paid out a tremendous amount of money. However, I am not blaming the Treasury at this point. I must accept that there was fault on the part of Manchester University.
Jodrell Bank would not have been the success it is had the application of the original plan not been altered in course of time. Modern scientific research had created improvements, and prices were rising during the eight years of construction, and these factors played their part in the increased cost of the telescope.
I do not blame the Public Accounts Committee for its judgment against Manchester University. The Committee has done its job very well indeed. First, it proved that it was looking after public


money. Secondly, it cleared Husband and Company and the United Steel Company, which was an important factor. Thirdly, it has made it impossible for anything of this nature to occur again in any important installation of this kind.
But the debt remains, and it is about the debt that I am speaking tonight. The whole purpose is to try to remove the debt rather than the stigma that attaches to Manchester University. It is the Treasury which has declared that the debt will not be cleared by public money but must be cleared by private subscription. Having smacked the child, to penalise it afterwards is double punishment, and I feel that to withhold this money from so important a British installation is rather contemptible. Frankly, the Government are being treated with contempt and ridicule by the Press for their very parsimonious attitude.
A cartoon in Punch showed two scientists coming out of the telescope, one saying, "isn't it demoralising tracking other people's satellites with something which we have not yet paid for?" On 8th January it was reported in the Daily Express that a boy of 11 sent 4s.
pocket money to help pay off the debt. I am reminded of the following from the Bible:
When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained".
Apparently we are going to do it out of kiddies' money boxes.
The telescope could have been sold to America for ten times the cost, but the people responsible would not sell it for patriotic reasons. The offer was rejected on patriotic grounds, but what would Russia pay for it today? I suggest to the Government, through the appropriate Minister, that it is time that they stopped sulking about the quarrel with Manchester University and freed Britain's finest achievement from this debt.

10.20 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Bromley-Davenport: I should like to support the case put forward by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom). Jodrell Bank lies in my constituency, and, therefore, we have a special pride in this great scientific development and hope very much indeed that the Government will see their way to provide the necessary money.
The facts are perfectly simple. In this great project, Manchester University overspent the sum of money allocated to it by £130,000. There was no authorisation for this over-expenditure, and no authority from anybody. They said nothing until after this sum had been spent. The result was that the Public Accounts Committee, which consists of Members of all parties in this House, addressed a question to the Treasury on this point, and the Treasury replied that there was no contemplation of this £130,000 being met by voted moneys, either directly or indirectly.
The Committee, with one exception, welcome this assurance. This, therefore, was a matter which the House itself had raised, and when it received that answer at that stage—that no money should be spent on covering this £130,000 —the House welcomed that assurance.
The situation now is, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that Manchester University has to raise the money itself from public subscriptions and from independent sources. I should therefore like to ask my hon. Friend to use all the powers he possibly can with Her Majesty's Government to make one exception in this case and provide the money.

Mr. John Hynd: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman a simple question?

Lieut. Colonel Bromley -Davenport: No, I cannot give way.
The answer may well be that if we give way here, the Government may say—

Mr. Hynd: On a point of order. I have invited the hon. and gallant Member to give way so that I could correct him on a point of fact.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles Mac Andrew): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Hynd: I have not, in fact, made it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not a point of order.

Mr. Hynd: rose—

Lieut. -Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Please sit down, instead of raising bogus points of order.

Mr. Hynd: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not a point of order, I have already ruled that.

Mr. Hynd: rose—

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Sit down.
The answer may well be—

Mr. Hynd: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have already ruled that it is not a point of order.

Mr. Hynd: I have not asked my question yet.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is it a new point of order, and not the one that I have already answered?

Mr. Hynd: I have not yet put it. I am asking for your Ruling. Did this matter conic before the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That has nothing to do with me.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: The hon. Gentleman is trying to use a point of order to prevent me raising this matter, which concerns by own constituency. It is typical of the hon. Gentleman, who has great difficulty in knowing how to behave.
How crazy we must seem to other countries. We spend thousands of millions of pounds on coal which we cannot even dig out from under our feet without making it too expensive for anybody to buy and without closing down mines all over the country. We spend thousands of millions of pounds on the railways, with the result that the trains are later, dirtier and more dangerous than ever, yet we refuse, in this instance—and this is where we are in danger of looking so foolish—to advance £130,000 to support one of the greatest scientific achievements in the world.
The plain fact is that I fear that we are in some danger of appearing slightly ridiculous in the eyes of the world. With great respect, I urge my hon. Friend to spend the money in this case and so help a great and worthy cause.

10.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): I am delighted that the hon.

Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) has had an opportunity to state his case. He tried very hard to do so in one of the Friday debates, when we were defeated by lack of time, and I am glad that he has had a chance to put his case now so that I can answer him. I am also delighted that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) has had an opportunity to take part in the debate, because he has bombarded the Department, with all the energy which we know he has, by letter, telegram and telephone. I think that the only
method which he has not used is that of carrier pigeon. It is pleasant that he has been able to state his case in person.
I am delighted from our point of view to try to put the matter in its proper perspective. I want to state at once that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Government are second to none in their admiration of this project. We agree with all that the hon. Member for Brightside said about its virtues and about the value which should be attached to it. We recognise the outstanding contribution which it will make to the knowledge of astronomy and of outer space at a time when the mysteries of the universe are being revealed to us for the first time. We regard it as further evidence of the technical skill and ability of our British scientists which has won respect from the whole world.
The Government's acknowledgment of this achievement is not merely a matter of words. They have willingly given support, including considerable financial support, from the very beginning.
Since the hon. Member's figures were not quite accurate, it would be as well for the record if I briefly gave the general outline of events which have led to tonight' debate. The financial history is that from the beginning, in 1950, a small grant was made, to enable design study to be carried out. When the design study was complete, Manchester University applied for a grant of £336,000. That was the university's figure and that was the amount for which the university applied. It was made up of £290,000 for capital costs and £46,000 for the running expenses and the salaries of the radio-astronomy school already established at Jodrell Bank. It was agreed


in 1952 that all this money for which the university asked would be provided. The first allocation was £168,000 from the D.S.I.R.—that is, the Government—and £168,000 from the Nuffield Foundation. That completely financed the project upon which we had been satisfied at that stage.
In 1953, because of rising costs and minor modifications about which we knew, the estimated total cost was increased to £430,000, an increase of £94,000. The D.S.I.R. had been told about this and accepted it. It agreed to increase the Department's grant from £168,000 to £230,000, and the Nuffield Foundation increased its grant to £200,000. This was an increase of £62,000 from the Government above the amount first promised, and it was all that Manchester University sought.
Two years later, in November, 1955, the Department was presented with still another revised estimate on which it had not had note of the details. The figure had risen to £680,000. The first estimate, which we accepted, was £336,000, and at this stage we were told that the cost would be £680,000.
At this stage, very properly, I think, the D.S.I.R. and Manchester University set up a committee of inquiry to look into this vast increase in the cost of the project. The committee said that the increased cost was attributable, on the one hand, to alterations or major developments of design, and, on the other hand, to additional features which it had been thought fit to incorporate into it. The committee said that, generally speaking, this had accounted for the great increase but it discovered that even this new figure was not correct. It discovered on further inquiry that the cost had risen to £700,000. It was at this point, I think very understandably, that the matter was taken up by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The House will remember that he investigated it and reported on it.
It was at this stage that the Public Accounts Committee of this House, not the Government nor the Treasury, consisting of representatives in almost equal numbers from both sides of the House, took the matter up and inquired into it. The Committee expressed some dissatisfaction with the financial control which had been exercised by the Department and the university. It could be seen that

the project, which had been estimated to cost £336,000, had now reached a figure of £700,000. The Department at this stage, with Treasury approval, agreed to pay a further £130,000 towards the extra that was required. This offer of an extra £130,000, the second increase which had been made, was made on the clear understanding that the Government's payment would be a final contribution to the capital cost of construction, and the university agreed that it would find the remainder from its own resources or in some other way. It certainly was not the Treasury which stated that the matter ought to go out to public subscription. It was clearly understood by the university, the Department and the Treasury that if this extra payment was made by the Department the university would be responsible for the remainder.
It was in these terms that the offer was put to the university, and the Treasury and the Public Accounts Committee, who were really keen on seeing that this project was properly handled, said that they wanted a clear assurance that this was the last payment. The assurance was given to the Public Accounts Committee, and this was the basis of the settlement which was accepted by the university. After going into the matter fully in the letter dated 27th November, 1957, the unversity agreed to these terms knowing full well that the balance for which it would be responsible was an extra £140,000. There is nothing grudging or mean about this, because the Department had already increased its contributions twice—from £168,000 to £230.000 and subsequently to £360,000 in 1956.
Up to that time the university had not been called upon to make any financial contribution to the cost of this instrument. But when we made the settlement it was clearly understood that the D.S.I.R. would pay £360,000, the Nuffield Foundation would pay £200,000 and that Manchester University would be responsible for the remainder. Everyone knew the exact circumstances surrounding the whole scheme and each clearly agreed to accept responsibility for these various amounts. I do not think a reminder is necessary to show that the D.S.I.R. and, through that Department, the Government, had co-operated all along the line.
I do not think I need remind the House how vital it is when distributing public


money that such agreements as I have just described should be strictly adhered to. I do not think the House would differ from this, that whoever is in government we must never give the appearance of arriving at a position where the Government of the day are committed ultimately to pay in full for every research project to which they merely make a first contribution, no matter how much the original estimate differed from the final figure. If we were to adopt the principle which is suggested, it would mean that we should be encouraging applicants to underestimate in order to get their foot in the door, irrespective of what the final cost would be.
Nor is this out of keeping with the established way of spending the taxpayers' money. I do not think it is out of place to produce the analogy of what happens in other spheres. If anyone wants a farm improvement grant or a house improvement grant, it is clearly laid down that before the grant is agreed upon the Government Department concerned must see the final and completed plans, otherwise if they make a start without getting that approval they cannot expect a grant from the Government. I am quite certain—indeed, I gathered that this is so from what the hon. Member said—that he would recognise that this is a general principle upon which we are all agreed, and it must be continued.
If one takes this as a yardstick, it can be seen that in the case of the Jodrell Bank scheme the D.S.I.R. had stretched its discretion to the limit in agreeing to two increases, as I have already described, which really put the scheme outside the strict principle that I have laid down.
That is the present position. I think that any fair view of the picture will show that the Government had not been grudging; that, from the first, they really have, within the limits of sound financial control, tried to give all the help they possibly could to this great project. I think that I have said enough to assure the hon. Gentleman that there was no lack of sympathy, or lack of generosity on the part of the Government, but we have a responsibility, first to the Public Accounts Committee and then to the country to see we do not deviate from these vital principles. Indeed, right from the beginning, the Government have

proved enthusiastic partners in this scheme.
Nor, if one looks at the wider picture, can it be said that Manchester University has not been treated fairly in the way in which public money has been allocated to universities generally. I have looked up the present position. I find that out of eight recent major university schemes which are being supported by the D.S.I.R., and costing over £100,000 each, three, including the Jodrell Bank project, have come under the aegis of Manchester University. I think that hon. Members will agree that, on this showing, Manchester University has not been treated ungenerously.
I respect the hon. Member's point of view. I can well understand the concern of my hon. Friend, in whose constituency this great project has been planted. We do not want to discourage—and, frankly, I do not think that this will discourage—the universities and the scientists from taking on similar projects which will place us in the lead in the future. Everyone knows, the universities as well as any, that any Government, no matter what its political colour may be, can dispense public money only if they adhere to sound, sensible principles. I believe that one principle to which we must adhere is that we must know on what the money is being spent before it is granted. The other principle is that if it is thought that any project is to be very much increased in cost, then, from the time the project starts to the time it finishes, the Government Department concerned should be kept clearly in the picture, and should agree to the extra expenditure before being held liable for it.
I hope that I have said enough to show that there has been no lack of sympathy—there has certainly not been any lack of recognition of the importance of this great scheme—but we have also to show sound financial sense in order to have the money available to help universities with similar schemes in the future—and we hope that there will be many.
Having said that, I can assure the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend that my noble Friend follows very closely the debates in this House on all matters relating to scientific development, and that I shall report faithfully to him all that they have said. They have not said anything new. One understands their


concern, and I applaud their energy in seeing that it is on the records of the House. I hope that, in return, they will concede that I have said enough to show that there is nothing mean, or grudging or reluctant on the part of the Government, and that when we applaud this scheme we do so not only with words but, by the increased grants we have carried it into action, too.

Mr. J. Hynd: On the contrary, I am convinced, by what the hon. Gentleman has said, that the Government are not only showing a mean spirit but a very serious lack of imagination. I cannot quite see how the Prime Minister can go to Moscow and there boast of this great achievement when he knows that it has not been paid for, and that the firms that have produced it are still waiting for their money.

Mr. Nicholls: The scheme has been paid for. There is no debt outstanding

to the contractors who did the work. The university has made itself responsible for that. The university's case is that it might make it more difficult to deal with other matters if it has a deficit over this.

Mr. Hynd: My information is that the firms concerned have not yet been paid for this work. The Minister talks of the necessity to follow certain principles in the expenditure of public money, and says that in this case the Government have been so generous as to agree to the two increases, but he knows that those increases were incurred over a period of eight years in framing a much different telescope from that originally planned, a much superior telescope—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.